This screenshot is an extract from an article published in a 1977 edition of the Canadian Homemakers Magazine.
Dr Charles Brusch, mentioned in the article, was President John F Kennedy's personal physician. He was a long time supporter of Essiac, especially when used as a backup to conventional cancer therapies.
The medical profession considers Essiac to be of no benefit, but after delving into Essiac's history I feel it may have been treated unfairly in the past and might be deserving of a second look.
Please read the article and let me know your thoughts.
I did drink Essiac tea for many years. No side effects. After so many years my PSA started to rise so I figured I got all I could from it. I think cancer finds a work-around to supplements just as it does ADT drugs.
I read an article years ago about President Kennedy being interested in the Essiac formula. I don't know if it was the same one. It sparked my first thoughts on the influence of drug companies on the FDA.
I thought I read that jfk had pain issues, Addison's disease and other health problems. He had physiatrist woman MD that injected trigger points to relieve pain. Essiac may have been her idea.
The doctor had a lab in Cambridge. He heard of and became interested in Essiac. Nurse Caisse, for whom the mixture is named --her name spelled backwards--collaborated with him. They added four more ingredients to the original mix, watercress herb, red clover blossom, blessed thistle herb and kelp. This formula is now sold under the name of Flor-Essence.
I first made the tea myself brewing a supply of it from the original four ingredients, sheep sorrel, slippery elm, burdock root and rhubarb, all organic, sold by my herbalist. He also advised IP6 & Inositol saying to take the two together as I mentioned that the tea is supposed to be taken on an empty stomach. I asked how many times a day would my stomach be empty? LOL!
Brewing the original formula is a time consuming task. I asked my herbalist about the Flor-Essence and he said it would be fine.
One of the things the tea is supposed to do is clean the liver optimizing it's performance. The Europeans use milk thistle to cleanse the liver.
Burdock root is interesting. Helpful in the way that Viagra is but less potent.
Burdock root is used by some when exposed to radiation.
This may be of interest to some of you. The herbalist told me that dandelion is also a cleanser. Dandelion tea, leaf and root and Whole Foods sells fresh organic dandelion greens which are two ways to get some dandelion into one's self. I remember my grandparents harvesting the early spring dandelions and steaming them to eat as a "tonic" after the winter. My grandparents were born in the 1800's. They had learned things from their grandparents. Maybe some fresh greens tasted good after a winter of canned goods, animal products and root vegetables.
As for the Flor-Essence, I feel that once one's body is cleansed and their diet is clean, dosing once a day is sufficient for maintenance.
Flor-Essence is available at Amazon, Whole Foods and The Vitamin Shoppe.
I have used Essiac first followed by Flor-Essence for years.
I have been eating burdock root for months and dandelion greens on and off for years. Both are available at my local food coop. Not for treatment necessarily but for diversity. Good to know they have benefits other than promoting gut microbiome.
"In the early 1980s, the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare (Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs) conducted a retrospective review of data voluntarily submitted by physicians for 86 cancer patients who had obtained Essiac under Canada’s Emergency Drug Release Program between 1978 and 1982.[1,2,4] (Note: [2] states that data from 87 patients were reviewed.) The Bureau’s evaluation was based on written summaries submitted by the physicians and not on a review of the original patient records.[4] The Bureau found 47 patients who did not benefit from Essiac; 1 had subjective improvement, 5 required fewer analgesics, 4 had an objective response, and four were in stable condition.[1,4] Among the remaining 25 patients, 17 had died, and the reports for 8 were considered unevaluable. The Bureau solicited additional information about the four patients who had an objective response and the four patients who were in stable condition. This additional information revealed that, among these eight patients, two had died, three had progressive disease, and three remained in stable condition.[1,4] The three patients in stable condition had received previous conventional therapy. Therefore, the benefits of treatment for these patients, if any, could not be clearly ascribed to Essiac.[4]"
"Because no study of the use of Essiac or Flor Essence in humans has been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, no level-of-evidence analysis is possible for these mixtures. The data that are available, however, do not support claims that Essiac and Flor Essence can detoxify the body, strengthen the immune system, or fight cancer. At this time, evidence does not support the use of either Essiac or Flor Essence in the treatment of cancer patients outside the context of well-designed clinical trials.
However you're not telling me anything that I haven't already heard many times before.
Unfortunately to me it appears to be like a repeat of the 1940s Royal Cancer Commission where hundreds of patients weren't allowed to testify and those that did testify were ignored. Most improvements were written off then as being caused by the patient's conventional treatment or were deemed to have been misdiagnosed. That is all detailed in the article including statements from eye witnesses.
By the way, there is a statue dedicated to Rene Caisse in her hometown of Bracebridge Ontario. I think it's still there today and I hope it hasn't been torn down.
A "well respected journalist" is not a scientist. I read wrong stuff on mainstream media all the time. Stick to getting your information from peer-reviewed journals and you won't go far wrong.
Throughout life there will always be different types of evidence.
Scientific evidence, expert witness evidence, eye witness evidence, patient statements, historical documentation etc. etc.
Obviously in the medical field scientific evidence would be the best of them all.
But surely other types of evidence carry some weight too?
For centuries it would seem that medicine worked by “trial and error”.
What seemed to work successfully was passed down from generation to generation.
For a long time there was no such thing as peer reviewed evidence.
Just because something has not yet been scientifically proven to work does not automatically mean that it has been scientifically proven NOT to work.
If you know of a peer reviewed long term double blind clinical trial of Essiac that scientifically proves that it doesn’t work then please let me know where I can find it.
Everything that we accept today as being scientifically proven was unproven at some point in time.
I remember reading how some jury members seem to be having more difficulty with their deliberations these days.
Many of them expect cases to have clear forensic scientific evidence like in the CSI type TV shows.
If clear forensic scientific evidence isn’t available they have to rely on other types of evidence, witness statements, alibis, victim statements etc., and it’s a lot harder for them to reach their decisions.
I'm still unsure as to whether you have read the article or not.
Just read the article you mentioned, but I didn't see any mention of Essiac.
Obviously I can’t afford to do a clinical trial to prove Essiac works, but it seems there is no real evidence to prove that it definitely doesn't work either.
At least no peer reviewed double blind clinical trials anyway.
The article that is the subject of this post contains names of people who claim to have have benefited from Essiac, and names of doctors who saw with their own eyes those benefits. Have you read the article?
That seems to put us back to square one.
You say that no-one has benefited from Essiac, and I disagree with you.
This post is titled "A Complementary Therapy that might actually help?"
As Essiac can't be proven either way without a full clinical trial I feel that title is valid.
By the way, here's a fully documented case report published in 2016 where the doctors were open minded enough to suggest that it would be interesting to conduct a clinical trial of standard chemotherapy followed by long term consumption of Essiac.
The whole article is about Essiac, and nothing but. I quoted the the research presented from the article about the clinical research they did. Their research proves there is no benefit.
Unfortunately the last link you provided takes me to a page headed
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (March 2009)
I can't see any mention of Essiac on that page.
I even did a Ctrl F to search for the word Essiac and it couldn't find it.
Perhaps you made a mistake in the link?
At time of writing this you still haven't had the courtesy to answer my simple question “Have you read the article?”
So I decided to try using logic to try to find the answer.
I asked myself 2 questions...
1.Do I have proof that you read the article? A: No
2.Do I have proof that you didn’t read the article? A: No
As I can’t prove it either way, the only possible conclusion that I can reach is:
You might have read it.
That same type of logic can also be applied to Essiac...
I asked myself 2 questions...
1.Are there any clinical trials that prove Essiac helps? A: No.
2.Are there any clinical trials that prove Essiac doesn’t help? A: No.
As I can’t prove it either way, the only possible conclusion that I can reach is:
Essiac might help.
Which is all I’ve been saying from the very start.
I have never claimed it to be proven, I’ve only said that it might help.
If anyone wants to have a quick look at my Bio they will see that I have already been using Essiac for over three years. I see my oncologist and have PSA tests every 3 months. My oncologist knows exactly what I take and he knows he is only observing me, not actually treating me. He is amazed at my results and says that it’s great we still have lots of clinical options in reserve if things change in the future. Our visits finish with him telling me to keep doing what I’m doing and that we’ll see each other in three months.
My own family doctor knows what I’m taking too.
He admitted to me that if he ever gets cancer he’ll try it too.
I know that he could never recommend it to another patient because it’s an unproven treatment and that would be the end of his career.
Anyway, I will ask you once again..
Can you provide a link to a long term double blind clinical trial that proves Essiac doesn’t work?
If you can, please do so.
If you can’t, please don’t bother sending me any more of your links.
I have already provided links to documents containing doctors’ statements that they have seen patients benefit from Essiac.
I have also provided a link to a PUB MED article where the doctors admit that they cannot completely discount the possibility that Essiac might have helped.
(Which is a long winded way of saying “It might help”.)
In that very same PUB MED article the doctors actually suggested that it would be interesting to conduct a clinical trial of standard chemotherapy followed by long term consumption of Essiac.
All of that, and yet you still persist in saying Essiac has been proven not to work.
That is not logical.
Why should I believe you, ahead of all the doctors who admit it might help?
It would be illogical for me to take your word ahead of those doctors.
I am always happy to discuss Essiac with anyone, provided they are courteous and logical.
Every time someone posts something on this topic it gets bumped up the list of active topics and that might result in even more people looking into the amazing history of Essiac.
All you wrote was “The above study” and that was directly underneath the last link. No wonder I clicked the wrong link.
I read it when you first posted it, and it “proves” absolutely nothing.
You make a definitive statement when you write stuff like "The above study proves Essiac tea does not work because no one benefited from its use."
I have only ever said that Essiac might help, and I have offered statements from doctors to prove my claim.
The onus is on you to prove your definitive statement.
If I had claimed Essiac definitely works then the onus would be on me to prove my definitive statement.
However, I haven’t claimed that at all, so please don’t expect me to prove something that I haven’t claimed, that would be completely illogical.
It would be illogical for you to expect me to prove something that I haven’t claimed.
Anyway, here's what I wrote in my earlier reply to your “proof”...
"Unfortunately to me it appears to be like a repeat of the 1940s Royal Cancer Commission where hundreds of patients weren't allowed to testify and those that did testify were ignored. Most improvements were written off then as being caused by the patient's conventional treatment or were deemed to have been misdiagnosed”.
Your so called “proof” includes the lines...
"No report of a clinical study of Essiac has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
"
And
"The three patients in stable condition had received previous conventional therapy. Therefore, the benefits of treatment for these patients, if any, could not be clearly ascribed to Essiac.
"
So, in your so called “proof” they admit to ignoring anyone who had previous conventional treatment.
That’s exactly what they did in the 1940s Cancer Commission.
Calling that “proof” is absolute nonsense, it doesn’t prove anything.
I have already proved what I have actually claimed, so now it’s time for you to prove what you have claimed.
I challenge you to prove that Essiac has been proven not to work by showing me a long term double blind clinical trial that proves it doesn't work.
To use a popular phrase here in Australia ... “Put up or shut up.”
By the way, you still haven’t answered my question “Did you read the article?”
That study proves it has no benefit for anyone. There were 86 people and not one person had any benefit. Why would anyone go to the expense of a randomized study with a placebo when not one person out of 86 saw any benefit at all? Randomized studies (double blinded) are done to account for a placebo effect, but there was not even any placebo effect in all of those who drank the tea. There was no benefit - it has been proven. Move on - the internet is full of other "remedies" you can advocate for.
Over the last few days I have twice suggested that we should agree to disagree, so let's do that.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs.
You are entitled to your belief that a study of 86 subjects constitutes absolute proof.
I am entitled to my belief that a study of 86 subjects doesn't prove anything.
Especially when any subject who appeared to show benefits was excluded if they had previous conventional treatment, because any benefits could not be clearly ascribed to Essiac.
So yes, let's agree to disagree and move on from that discussion.
On another matter entirely, in your last reply you suggested that the internet is full of other "remedies" that I can advocate for.
I only advocate for Essiac as a complementary therapy, and I would never suggest to anyone that they should stop their conventional treatments.
That's why I chose to show Dr Charles Brusch's comments in the photo at the start of this post.
So please be respectful and refrain from suggesting that I advocate for anything else.
It sounds like you don't believe that at all. Yet, that is exactly what Phase 2 studies are. They eliminate those useless therapies so we don't waste time on them. If you are not willing to accept actual evidence of no benefit, I can't imagine what you would accept. My point is it's time for you to move on - there are plenty of therapies that haven't yet been disproven that you can advocate for.
86 subjects can disprove something beyond a reasonable doubt when there is no evidence of any benefit in any of them. On a sample size of 86, with 0% affected by the treatment, one can say with 98% confidence that the effect can be no larger than 4%. It isn't my belief, it is the belief of medical scientists. I hope this will lead you to learn more about research methods.
Why should I answer your questions when you have repeatedly and rudely ignored my simple question of "Have you read the article?"?
You put yourself way out on a limb when you declared that the maths in the study you quoted proved that Essiac didn't work and that it was a disproven treatment.
I sincerely doubt that any scientist would make such a bold statement based purely on a study. They would probably say it was unproven, not proven to be effective, or something along those lines, but certainly not disproven.
Now let's consider the study that you insist proves your point..
Your study states....
"In the early 1980s, the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare (Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs) conducted a retrospective review of data voluntarily submitted by physicians for 86 cancer patients who had obtained Essiac under Canada’s Emergency Drug Release Program between 1978 and 1982. The Bureau’s evaluation was based on written summaries submitted by the physicians and not on a review of the original patient records."
They didn't even bother to talk with the patients or look at their medical records!
The only data they used was from doctors who wanted to submit their own summaries.
That is definitely not reliable data and you are completely wrong in saying that study can prove anything at all.
There's an old computer saying .. GIGO Garbage In Garbage Out.
As your "Maths" is based on unreliable data then it is unreliable too.
Now let's see what some real scientists have to say in the amazing case report of an advanced pancreatic cancer patient who appeared to have a full recovery.
Here is an extract from the PUB MED article I linked to earlier....
"Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer sometimes seek alternative remedies when conventional therapies either fail or are deemed futile. In this case, our patient chose to use Protandim and Essiac Tea. Promoters assert that these agents serve as immunomodulators, analgesics, appetite stimulants and antineoplastic agents [10, 11]. There is however no valid scientific evidence to support these assertions. To the contrary, an article published in Nutrition and Cancer recently compared Essiac Tea to paclitaxel to study its anti-proliferative effects in prostate cancer cells, both in vivo and in vitro. The study demonstrated no significant difference in tumor size, cell cycle distribution effects, or cell toxicity after treatment with Essiac Tea versus control [12]. Although we cannot completely discount the potential impact of its use, either alone or in combination with standard chemotherapeutic regimens, caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions about its efficacy in this case study. The anti-proliferative effects of Essiac Tea and Protandim have not been studied in pancreatic cancer. Based on the observation from this case report, it might be interesting to conduct a clinical trial of standard chemotherapy followed by long-term application of the two nutraceutical supplements taken by this patient: Protandim and Essiac Tea."
They don't say it's unproven at all, just that there is no evidence to support it, and later suggest a clinical trial.
Yes it's unproven, but it's certainly not disproven.
Does "peer reviewed" really mean "gang Reviewed" ....what to promote and what to defame...as decided by the honchos of profiteers....
.Thank God..Knowledge is becoming democratized and fake research will meet the fate of "fake" new media...which is breathing its last. More power to people...less control by SOC mafia. Let all viewpoints come in open and be judged based on merit.
I get my news from The Washington Post. If you rely on the "democratized" news on Twitter, that certainly explains why you rely on internet garbage to make treatment decisions.
Essiac Tea Herbs Organic with Sheep Sorrel Content 25% Roots - 4 oz.
Brand: Blue Moon Herbs
4.7 out of 5 stars 16 ratings | 5 answered questions
Price:$60.00 ($60.00 / Count) + $8.00 shipping
Hard-to-find Essiac with sheep with Sheep sorrel content 25% roots! All ingredients are either certified organic or responsibly wildcrafted. Blue Moon Herbs is one of only a few sources for Essiac that uses the ENTIRE Sheep sorrel plant, as Rene Caisse did, including the ROOTS.
Makes 2-2.5 gallons. Detailed instructions included. See also The Essiac Essentials Handbook (2018, Mali Klein), and Black Root Medicine The Original Native American Essiac Formula (2014, Mali Klein) for more information
Also available in 10g (2.5 weeks' supply), 2 oz. (2+ months' supply) - single and 3-pack- and 8 oz. sizes
Blue Moon Herbs Essiac makes the most accurate replication of Rene Caisse's Essiac formula. and is one of only a few sources for Essiac that uses the ENTIRE Sheep sorrel plant, as Rene Caisse did, including 25% ROOTS.
This seems like a very pricey product. If you go to Amazon and look up Flor-essence, you will find a product that adheres to Nurse Caisse’s standard and does not rip you off.
Seems the ingredients are mostly antioxidant,anti inflammatory stuff and thus might thwart prostate cancer. Chronic inflammation promotes cancer.
Davek1200- DO NOT LISTEN to a word that tall allen states about this or any other alternative treatment. He's against them all and is in full denial of the countless claims of cure and remission that natural/alternative treatments have yielded! The man is a close minded fool who continuously bashes treatment that is not in alignment or that has not been "scientifically proven" by conventional medicine. I have stated on this forum many times that there will never be scientific studies resulting in the medical community approving Essiac or any other alternative treatment for one simple reason. Despite the many thousands of success stories including flat out cures, ME BEING ONE OF THEM, these alternative protocols have nothing in their makeup that can be patented therefore no arm of the medical system, corporate, private or government is going to put millions of dollars into studies that will not yield an eventual ROI much less a big fat profit! Simple as that!
Essiac has THOUSANDS of success stories with all types of cancers and was discovered (invented) in the 1920s in Canada by an oncology R.N. named Renee Caisse. Research her amazing story of how this tea was invented and how many patients she has personally helped cure with this tea in her practice. The tea was named after her (last name spelled backwards). My personal story that tall allen ridicules is that I was full stage 4 with Mets to spine, ribs, neck and shoulder and prostate gland was described in MRI report 1 year ago as "gland fully engulfed and can be said is one mammoth tumor" . On Feb 27th, 2020 follow-up MRI showed all bone Mets gone and prostate gland tumor 50 percent reduced with entire right peripheral zone completely clear. All my symptoms vanished and I lead a fully normal life with fully functioning prostate. I've never had any conventional treatment since original diagnosis in 2013 even tho was told on 2 occasions since 2013 that if I didn't start immediate hormone, get prostate removed, radiation and possible chemo, I'd be dead in 3 months.
I asked God to either take me or to put me on the path I needed to be on to help myself with this disease. Over the following 7 years I met the right people and through my own research discovered a plethora of case study proven protocols that I've utilized and modified on my own to finally achieve the success I enjoy today.
After all this time I finally found a competent open-minded and supportive oncologist at Moffit Cancer Center in Tampa, Julio Pow-Sang,MD who is fascinated with my response to the protocol I've been on since Jan 13, 2020 and he's in full support of it, part of it includes Essiac Tea.
The thing about Essiac though is there are MANY companies now making it that claim it's authentic Essiac made from the original recipe of Renee Caisse. Be aware that MOST are not! The main active ingredients of Caisse's Essiac recipe are:
Burdock root
Rhubarb root
Sheep sorrel root
Slippery elm bark
The issue is the Sheep Sorell Root is rare and hard to obtain so many companies use the leaves or other part of the plant that does not have the needed chemical constituents that the actual root does. So these essiac formulas will not work either as well or at all. Be sure to buy an essiac tea that states clearly that it uses the full "sheep sorrel root" and not just "sheep sorell"
I feel I have much information that can help others and I am in the midst of writing a book that I expect to be available in 2021 outlining in full detail my entire 7 year journey and the steps and protocols I use that have gotten me here. Feel free to contact me through PM if you'd like more information. I am currently sharing details with several people from this and other forums who have contacted me direct.
You are so right....Who is going to finance clinical trials of Garlic which lowers Cholesterol by 7 percent. It did for me. Many herbs and spices are too cheap, unpatentable ..so no one will finance the studies.
At one point, many years ago, during a lifetime of rising cholesterol levels, I didn’t like the idea of increasing my atorvastatin from 10 to 20 mg/day so I started taking Bragg's organic apple cider vinegar. I chatted my results of progressively lowering my atorvastatin intake and after 3 years I had lower cholesterol and was down to 10mg atorvastatin every other day. My pcp was impressed.
The original plan per my RO was to go off ADT about 6 months after IMRT to prostate. Then to wait until my PSA increased to 2.0. Then, if I was still oligometastatic to zap my mets.
I got a new MO who is very proactive and she insisted that the MO, not the RO, called the shots and scrapped his plan and told me when my PSA increased to 0.50 to get a GA68 PET-PSMA scan at UCLA to get the best available definition of my metastices, then go back on ADT to beat down the mets as much as possible and then, if I am still oligometastatic, to zap those mets. Based on all I’ve learned here I was totally supportive of her plan. I didn’t want to wait until my PSA increased to 2.0 as I figured that was only allowing to cancer to progress further. During the time of my holiday my testosterone came back to normal levels so gave my system a infusion of the good things T does for us. I don’t mind going back on ADT.
If they think that they see a cancer hot spot on my abdominal aortic lymph node during an PSMA-PET scan from NIH does that mean it's outside olgamastatic and would that mean that zapping with radiation is worthless at that point?
Not necessarily. The UCLA PET-CT scan found 2 small hot spots on my para-aortic lymph nodes. That added to the one bone met on my iliac and two on my ribs which brings the total to 5, still within the definition of oligo. However, as my MO said, that’s a somewhat arbitrary definition anyway. Also zapping the mets under these circumstances has not been proven to increase OS. I’m willing to take the chance. In fact I’m leaving for Houston today for that treatment. The bone mets will go quick. 2 or 3 RT sessions. Unfortunately the para-aortic lymph nodes will take 28 sessions so I’ll be back in Houston for another two months, ugh
Oh ok, that'll be some effort for you but I think you'll do just fine. My MO's opinion is that Radition for my areas arent proven to help. You'd think that there would be more evidence one way or the other. They will probably still be saying the same think in 2040. Are you going to MD Anderson for this? Why not just do it in UCLA?
Oh ok. They weren't sure, there was one other node in the exterior of the prostate bed region. They called them hotspots. They couldn't be confident for sure but with my PSA at 38 at the time, they concluded metastatic, whatever that means. I still havent figured out the whole, "if the PSA is high then there must be microscopic cancer throughout your body but then they do surgery and radiation on some people in remote body parts to remove them... Well, isnt their microscopic cancer all over their bodies too? They need to get more consistent with this shit at their worldwide conferences.
Tall-Allen is certainly no fool for adhering to universally accepted standards of mathematically-based scientific inquiry. I find his claim of the improbability of Essiac tea being efficacious as a prostate cancer cure to be insufficiently low. You might as well go out and enjoy a vanilla shake.
I haven't had any conventional treatment since early 2017 and the only things I have been taking since then have been Essiac tincture and CBD oil.
My 2016 PSMA PET scan showed mets near my oesophagus, aorta and in my groin.
My 2020 PSMA PET scan showed the mets near my oesophagus and aorta had resolved and showed signs of calcification, and the met near my groin had reduced in size.
It seems to be working for me, so I'll stick with it for now.
Did you read the article mentioned at the beginning of this thread?
Even if someone strongly disagrees with Essiac it is still well worth reading the article to get the other side of the story.
I tried Essiac. I took a high dose. It lowered my psa for 2 months & then it stopped working.
My guess is that it worked on the my prostate cancer cells that were susceptible to Essiac, & when they were eliminated, my Essiac resistant
prostate cancer cells were left to proliferate & increase my psa. That's just my guess. So I guess I dosed at too high a level. I'm just guessing.
I had the same reaction with raw garlic: 2 months lowering psa, then stopped working. I was hitting it too hard I think with 10 cloves a day.
If I was going to try again I would moderate my dose to stabilize psa rather than lower it. I would try the adaptive therapy method so as to not wipe out the resistant cells, so as to leave some resistant cells to be in competition with the non-resistant cells, to try to obtain stabilization rather than cure, by moderating/adjusting my dose to avoid losing effectiveness. I don't know if that would work, but that's what I would try for myself, if I ever do it again.
(After a lot of investigation I ended up going to Dr. Rossi at California Proton.)
Because someone recently used this forum to promote sales of their own book, I wanted to unequivocally condemn that sort of blatant self promotion for personal gain.
If anyone thinks I bring up Essiac for personal gain then I want to advise them that I have never suggested anyone go against their doctor's advice.
I only suggest they might consider taking Essiac alongside their conventional treatments.
I am the first to admit that reputable medical sites declare Essiac unproven, with no scientific evidence showing it to be effective, but it has also been declared as non toxic.
It's cheap to buy with many people all over the world believing it's helped them, and I have no financial interest in it whatsoever.
In a nutshell.... If it helps someone that's great, but if it doesn't they've only lost a few bucks. (And not to me).
I just read about a 1000 replies and I'm still unclear what you do. Do you add an essiac tincture to hot water and that's it or is there more to it? How do you do it and what do you buy?
I use an Essiac tincture and put about 10 drops under my tongue.
If you want a link to the one I use please send me a message. I'd rather not link to their site publicly because I don't want anyone to accuse me of having a financial interest in it.
I take alternative stuff alongside standard treatments. I'd wouldn't rely solely on alternative treatments. The result is I don't know if they're doing anything. I noticed Essiac tastes like swamp water and gives me diarrhea. So I stopped it. Running to the bathroom isn't fun. Lol. I now use it when I'm constipated.
I have to agree with you about the awful taste of Essiac tea because I tried it for a couple of weeks.
The inconvenience of having to brew up a batch and store it in the refrigerator plus the awful smell and taste quickly convinced me to switch to Essiac tincture instead.
I find the tincture form much better for traveling and I only have to squirt a few drops under my tongue. It doesn't taste very nice, but it's all over in a few seconds.
I'm sorry to hear that Essiac tea gave you diarrhoea, but I've been taking Essiac tincture together with CBD oil for nearly four years without any side effects at all. That's a huge contrast to the severe side effects I suffered from my 2 months of ADT which really sent my QOL down the toilet.
I see my oncologist every 3 months and he is very pleased with how I'm going. My December 2020 PSA was virtually the same as my December 2016 PSA and my 2020 PSMA PET scan was better than the PSMA PET scan taken when I was first diagnosed in 2016.
I'm not suggesting that anyone else should stop their conventional treatment like I did, but I certainly think Essiac tincture and CBD oil are worth considering as complementary supplements to conventional therapies.
If anyone is interested in reading about my own cancer journey here's a post I started on this forum titled "Diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer 2016".
I take Zyflamend whole body or Zyflamend PROSTATE. There was a small study done in Washington state saying it kills prostate cancer cells. I'm M1, Gleason 9, diagnosed 2012, psa 31 at diagnosis. Last PSA 0.04 which was their bottom number.
I seem to remember reading one of your replies to a different post and I think you mentioned you were on Lupron and Xtandi.
If that is the case then I suspect it might be difficult to know for sure if the Zyflamend PROSTATE is helping. But if you feel it is, that's fine with me.
I've been taking only the Essiac tincture and CBD oil since early 2017. I haven't had surgery, chemo or radiotherapy, just two months of ADT at the very start of 2017.
In the future, if I feel that the Essiac tincture and CBD oil aren't helping control my cancer anymore I will certainly consider other therapies whether they be SOC, complementary or alternative.
But for now I'll stick with what seems to be helping me.
I'm not suggesting anyone else should do what I'm doing.
We're all grownups here capable of making our own decisions.
I'm just reporting what I've done and my results so far.
Absolutely, the complimentary stuff I have no way of knowing if it helps. It might be giving me a sense of control. Then again so does quitting smoking, drinking , and eating at McDonald's.
One aspect of all this is as follows. Many clinical trials report percentages of response. For example, cr (complete response) pr (partial response) nr ( no response). I've seen trends in oncology where one treatment that shows a response but not a durable response, combined with a substance that shows another partial response. What is it that they're doing here? For example I'm on Xtandi and Lupron. I'm in a clinical trial where they were testing Xtandi and Prostvac vs Xtandi alone. Prostvac is a fowl pox vaccine. The origin of this was a woman who had advanced breast cancer and then got the measels I believe. In any event when the measels went away so did he advanced cancer. I think the feeling was somehow fighting the measels woke up her immune system. Whoever designed the study added not only Xtandi but also Lupron or degarilix. They had 2 arms Xtandi (and Lupron) against Xtandi (and Lupron) and Prostvac. There have been many studies like this where they study more than one substance, especially in salvage therapies. I know that initially it's one substance at a time but when testing therapies, sometimes they add something on when the substance no longer works well. Could the same be applied to herbs or complementary therapies? I don't know. It's an interesting question that I don't really have an answer too.
I did drink essiac tea for a few years. It's one of those suppliments you don't know if it works or not. But my PSA stayed low. Was it the casodex or the tea or both. It worked for 5 years.
I wish this Essiac nonsense would stop. Ask yourselves how this Canadian nurse came up with her formulation...was it careful methodical trialing every ingredient laboriously adjusting dosing while adding component by component. Think about it. That would take years of study. No she came up with it on a whim and as fate would have it found an eager ‘journalist’ just as hungry for notoriety as her poor subjects were for dear life. placebo effect is as likely as any of her ingredients provide. If you google Essiac you’ll be taken to a Wikipedia page which exposes the fraud of its inventor and the bitter aftertaste of its legacy. If you want to take it do so but don’t insult us by perpetuating the fraud.
With all due respect, if u have time, you might wanna google this. It surprised me with it's projected benefits. Japan is doing a clinical on some cancer with it exclusively. Thanks for responding.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Planning radiation therapy. Which supplements to avoid and which can help?
Proton beam therapy please help 
JAMA October 2108 - Does Complementary Medicine Increase Risk of Death for Cancer Patients?
