Knowledge destroys the occult in medicine and transforms it into a science, not, however, until the profession is permeated with the fact and common sense statement that "Truth is before any other consideration".

This should be the scientific spirit in the treatment of cancer or any other disease. The profession has been moving along so-called scientific lines and not natural lines, and it is my opinion that the dictation of a few men, is faithfully followed by many general practitioners without question. It is my opinion that if anyone steps out of line and does his or her own thinking and accomplishes anything out of the ordinary with medicine and methods generally unknown, the dictators ostracise and condemn them without a fair investigation.

No matter how much greater his or her accomplishment is, than those of the dictators, they are "quackific" and not "scientific.". He or she is a quack and an exploiter. The true facts are, that the lone thinker (as in my case), has become so absorbed have been exploited of everything they possessed.

The prevailing spirit of modern medicine has been that of striving for dominance and domination, rather than direction. The fact of the matter is, that it lies with broad-minded laymen to take a firm stand. Then the lone thinkers, who have achieved success in the treatment of cancer, may have an opportunity to demonstrate the method and the success he or she is having in the treatment of this Dread disease.

Having selected twenty-six of the many patients treated with " Essiac" years ago, I wrote to each one to find out if they were still living. To my surprise, I received signed and witnessed statements from twenty-one (out of 26) who were still living and without a recurrence for over twenty years. I cannot understand what greater proof the Medical Association requires before admitting that " Essiac" is at least beneficial. Most of these patients were given but a few months to live, by their respective doctors before coming to me.

Medical science has nothing to offer the cancer sufferer but x-ray, radium and surgery.
Radiation, they now admit, had the opposite effect - it causes cancer instead of curing it.
We all know how little medical science has achieved in this field of medicine, so I will not elaborate upon it .

There was just one incident in the eight years of running my weekly clinics at Bracebridge that marred the serenity of my work and I will never forget it. A patient, a Mrs Gilrouth, walked into my treatment room. I gave her a treatment and she immediately Dropped dead. I had treated over fifty patients that day with the same medication and they were all fine.

There were two doctors there but she was dead before they could do anything. I remembered that her doctor had told me that this could happen any time from an embolism. Her two sons who were with her, told me that their doctor had warned them that this could happen any time. They said that she had had a weak spell that morning and they did not want to bring her for treatment, but she had insisted on coming.

Her doctor had told me over the telephone, that she had this condition, plus an ulcer which would not heal, and that he would appreciate it very much, if I would treat her for the relief I could give her. He sent me a written diagnosis of her case. Needless to say, I was very upset, but I had to continue treating the patients who had come from long distances. They were all anxious to have their treatments in spite of what had happened.

The CMA were notified and they blasted me in all the papers - big headlines:
"Woman dies after treatment at Caisse Cancer Clinic in Bracebridge!" etc...
two head pathologists, Dr Robinson and Dr Frankish from Toronto came to do an autopsy. They did not arrest me but held a "Court" and gave me a "Trial by Jury" of twelve men.

The judge was Dr Smirlie Lawson of Toronto. Somehow it got out that I could not find the written diagnosis from her doctor - it was mislaid, but I found it before appearing in court. I did not have time to tell my lawyers that I had found it, so they were surprised when the Crown Attorney asked me if I had a written diagnosis for this case and I presented it to him. The fifty-eight patients I had treated that day were all in court to testify for me, and Mrs Gilrouth's husband and her two sons also testified for me. The pathologists went out of their way to assure the jury that this would have happened whether she had come for treatment or not - so I was completely exonerated from all blame. There was no excuse for putting me through this ordeal. They did not close my clinic so I carried on as usual. Why did they have me up on trial? If they had waited for the report of the autopsy by their own pathologists, there would have been no necessity of a trial, because the report read:

"Death occurred as the result of an embolism in the pulmonary artery; a condition brought about by a varicose condition. Pulmonary embolism had been evident for years."