On June 10, 1975, Dr. Chester Stock, a vice president at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, wrote to a Canadian nurse named Rene Caisse: “Enclosed are test data in two experiments indicating some regressions in sarcoma 180 of mice treated with Essiac.” The sentence sat in a letter from one of the world’s largest private cancer research centers, concerning an herbal tea an elderly English woman had learned from an Ojibwa medicine man at a northern Ontario mining camp in the 1890s. The tests were terminated the following year after Sloan-Kettering admitted, in sworn affidavit three years later, that they had prepared the injectable solution improperly from the dried material supplied — freezing and thawing the herb rather than boiling it as Rene had instructed. By the time Calling of an Angel was published in 1988, Rene Caisse had been dead for a decade, having treated thousands of cancer patients across fifty-six years in her Bracebridge, Ontario kitchen, never charging a fee, and refusing every offer — from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the National Cancer Institute, Merck, Parke Davis, and private corporations dangling contracts up to $1 million — to release her formula before the medical establishment admitted her remedy had merit.
Dr. Gary Glum was a Los Angeles chiropractor running a thriving practice treating professional athletes, world-class weight lifters, and NFL team members when a friend introduced him to one of Rene’s cured patients in 1985. His prior work included a pain-relief technique contracted by Baptist Hospital in Nashville, Tennessee for its orthopedic pain control unit. He wrote the book after a year of persuading Rene’s friend to release the formula, after reading Rene’s own papers that Mary McPherson had kept in boxes under her bed in Bracebridge, after flying to Cambridge Massachusetts to meet Dr. Charles Brusch — the physician who had treated John F. Kennedy for Addison’s disease and who had worked with Essiac in his own clinic since 1959 — and after his own chronic bronchitis cleared within days of drinking the tea. He wrote as an outsider to oncology, which the summary treats as the position he actually held rather than disguising it.
The book appeared in 1988, in the sixth year after the Canadian government had shut down Resperin Corporation’s trials of Essiac, calling the quality control flawed while admitting the preparation itself was safe. Seven years earlier, the Washington Post had reported that over the previous decade more than 150 experimental cancer drugs had been given to tens of thousands of patients under National Cancer Institute sponsorship, many derived from pesticides, herbicides, and industrial dyes, producing hundreds of deaths and a list of adverse reactions including kidney failure, liver failure, bone marrow destruction, paralysis, coma, and in some cases tumor stimulation. An FDA official told the Post : “Almost all investigational cancer drugs are highly toxic.” Fluorouracil, 5-FU, carried a manufacturer’s warning that therapeutic benefit was unlikely without evidence of toxicity. Against this backdrop sat a non-toxic herbal preparation with six decades of documented clinical results, which no major institution would investigate without first obtaining the formula, and which no major institution would acknowledge after obtaining it. Nixon’s 1971 “War on Cancer” had absorbed billions of dollars by the time Rene died in 1978. The war’s chosen weapons were the ones the Post had described.
Calling of an Angel sits in the terrain canon as a documented record of what happens when a non-toxic remedy that strengthens the body’s own repair processes confronts an industry structured around patentable toxic interventions — the pattern Rene saw plainly, writing in the 1950s that cancer was systemic rather than localized, that surgery and radium attacked symptoms rather than causes, and warning in the same era about pesticides, food additives, and atmospheric nuclear testing years before Rachel Carson and President Kennedy made those warnings mainstream. The full summary unpacks the 1939 Royal Cancer Commission hearings, where 387 of Rene’s patients traveled to testify under oath and only 49 were permitted to speak while 338 were sent home; Dr. Charles Brusch’s own cancer in 1973 and his continued use of Essiac for the thirty years that followed; the eleven-year survival of esophageal cancer patient Patrick McGrail and the step-by-step documented reversal of Ross Nimchick’s stage 3-4 lymphoma with 95% node reduction; and the Catch-22 that held across six decades — Rene would release the formula once the institutions admitted merit, the institutions would admit merit once Rene released the formula, neither side moved, and the herbs grew wild across Ontario the whole time, available from any major herbal distributor in America for under $50.
30 Q&As
Question 1: What did Rene Caisse learn in 1922 from the elderly woman recovering from surgery in Haileybury, Ontario, and how did that encounter alter the trajectory of her life?
Answer: The woman was nearly 80 and bore a badly scarred right breast. She had come from England thirty years earlier to join her husband prospecting in northern Ontario, where she developed a swollen, painful mass that Toronto doctors diagnosed as advanced breast cancer requiring immediate removal. She refused surgery — a friend had recently died from the same operation and she could not afford it anyway. An Ojibwa medicine man at the mining camp told her he could cure her with an herbal tea and showed her how to prepare it. She drank the tea daily, her tumors diminished and disappeared, and she lived more than two decades cancer-free. Rene, then a 33-year-old surgical nurse held in high regard by the physicians she assisted, wrote down the names of the herbs the woman recited.
A year later, Rene was walking in the garden of an elderly retired doctor she knew. He lifted a weed with his cane and said, “Nurse Caisse, if people would use this weed there would be little or no cancer in the world.” He named the plant — the same name the old woman had given as an ingredient of the medicine man’s tea. The convergence settled the matter in Rene’s mind. She would spend the next 56 years brewing the formula in her kitchen, treating thousands of patients without charge, fighting the Canadian government and medical establishment through near-arrests, parliamentary battles, and a national Royal Commission, and never once veering from the conviction formed that day in a hospital room and sealed in that garden.
Question 2: How did Rene first apply the herbal formula to a family member, and what role did her mother’s recovery from inoperable liver cancer play in her commitment to the work?
Answer: About the time Rene opened her clinic in Bracebridge in 1935, her 72-year-old mother was diagnosed with inoperable cancer of the liver. Four local doctors said she was too weak for surgery. Rene called in one of Ontario’s top specialists, Dr. Roscoe Graham, who confirmed the diagnosis and reported that the liver was “a nodular mass.” Asked how long her mother had to live, Dr. Graham said a matter of days. One local doctor who disapproved of Rene’s work asked her sarcastically why she did not do something. Rene replied she was certainly going to try. She did not tell her mother the diagnosis. She administered daily injections of Essiac, calling it a tonic prescribed by her doctor.
Her mother completely recovered. She lived to 90 and died quietly after her birthday, in Rene’s words, “without pain, just a tired heart.” Rene said this one case repaid her for all her work — giving her mother eighteen years of life she would not otherwise have had — and made up for a great deal of the persecution she had endured. The case carried additional weight because the attending specialist was no obscure country doctor but one of the province’s leading physicians, and because the diagnosis had been confirmed by four other doctors before Essiac began. It was the kind of case Rene could never fully use in her public campaign, because it was her mother, but it was the case she returned to in her own mind whenever the attacks on her work grew unbearable.
Question 3: What happened when the Canadian Department of Health and Welfare sent two doctors to arrest Rene in 1926, and how did Dr. W.C. Arnold’s reversal shape the pattern that would recur for decades?
Answer: The department dispatched two doctors to Rene’s door carrying official papers authorizing them to arrest her or restrain her from practicing medicine without a license. Rene was badly shaken but explained that she was treating only patients abandoned by their physicians as terminally ill, that she charged nothing, and that she accepted only voluntary contributions. She showed them her reports, her letters from physicians, her records. They listened, decided to back off, and told her they were not going to have her arrested or order her to stop. One of those two doctors was Dr. W.C. Arnold. He left so impressed by what he had seen that he arranged for Rene to conduct experiments on mice at the Christie Street Hospital in Toronto under the supervision of two of the hospital’s physicians. The mice were inoculated with Rous Sarcoma, and Rene kept them alive 52 days — longer than anyone else had been able to.
Arnold went on to become chief physician of the Canadian Pension Board. He corresponded with Rene for the next fifteen years, writing long letters of encouragement, advising her through political battles, helping her round up support, and always pressing her to release the formula to him. The pattern established in that first encounter would recur through every decade of Rene’s working life. Officials arrived to shut her down and left persuaded. A health officer sent to Peterborough with a warrant for malpractice sat down, listened, and returned to his superior to explain the situation instead of arresting her. In 1958, nearly thirty years later, an officer again came to arrest her, heard her out, and told her to stop treating patients rather than take her in. The threats never stopped and the arrests never came, because the people sent to execute them kept finding something they could not reconcile with the task they had been given.
Question 4: What did the 1926 petition signed by eight physicians say, and why did Rene later describe the petition as “the opening gun in the war over Essiac”?
Answer: The petition was signed by R.O. Fisher, R.A. Blye, C.E. Becker, E.F. Hoidge, J.A. McInnis, Chas. H. Hair, A. Moore, and W.F. Williams, with J.N. Robert also attached. These were licensed physicians staking their professional reputations on an endorsement of a nurse without a medical degree who was treating cancer with an herbal tea in her apartment. Rene was, in her own words, “joyful beyond words at this expression of confidence by such outstanding doctors regarding the benefits derived from my treatment.” She was naive enough to believe that her work would now be recognized and advanced through official channels. She assumed that the signatures of eight physicians would open doors rather than close them.
Her joy was short-lived. The petition backfired entirely. The Department of Health and Welfare interpreted the document not as evidence of a promising remedy but as evidence of a nurse practicing medicine, and immediately dispatched the two doctors with authority to arrest her. For the next fifteen years she lived under siege. The pattern the petition inaugurated — supporting physicians speaking up at professional cost, the medical establishment moving to shut her down, Rene narrowly surviving each threat — would repeat continuously. By 1936, a second petition carried nine physician signatures, seven of them new, bringing the total to sixteen licensed physicians who had publicly backed her work. By 1937, forty doctors joined a 17,000-signature petition to the Ontario government. The war the first petition opened would run until her death in 1978 and beyond.
Question 5: How did Rene’s clinical practice work in operational terms — the requirement for a written diagnosis, the no-charge policy, the kitchen brewing, the patient volume at peak?
Answer: Rene accepted only patients who brought a written cancer diagnosis from a licensed physician. The requirement was both legal protection and medical gatekeeping — she would not treat someone who had not been examined and diagnosed by qualified doctors first. In practice this meant most of her patients had already been through surgery, radium, X-ray, or chemotherapy and been declared terminal or inoperable. She charged nothing. She accepted voluntary contributions — fruit, vegetables, eggs from those who had them, nothing from those who did not. One grateful husband who slipped a $50 bill under a book on her shelf was yanked into the house by his collar on his next visit and given a piece of her mind until he reframed it as a donation for the next patient who could not pay. “I never had $100 I could call my own,” she used to laugh with friends.
The brewing was done alone in her kitchen, late into the night. She stayed up half the night cooking Essiac after days spent treating as many as thirty patients at her Toronto apartment, later hundreds a week at the Bracebridge clinic. The scene at peak was described by Homemaker’s magazine as reminiscent of the Shrine of Lourdes — cars parked solidly along the shoulders of Dominion Street, people from all walks of life waiting patiently to enter the red brick British Lion Hotel building, some carried, others helped up the steps, ambulances arriving to double-park while Rene came down to treat stretcher cases. A doctor stood by as she injected scores of patients every day. The administrative apparatus was Rene herself. There were no staff, no fees, no advertising. The system ran on her refusal to stop and the word-of-mouth of patients who credited her with their lives.
Question 6: What did the documented cases of Mrs. DeCarle, Mr. F. Maxwell, and John Tynan establish about what Essiac was producing in patients who had been written off by their physicians?
Answer: Mrs. DeCarle was a 55-year-old woman examined by Dr. J.A. McInnis in late 1928 with a hard, nodular tumor in her upper abdomen and another distinctly palpable mass in the region of the uterus. Two specialists in Brockville had confirmed malignancy and given her several months to live. The case was inoperable. McInnis documented in a two-page single-spaced letter dated March 22, 1929 what happened under Essiac. After ten days of treatment, improvement was observed in both the patient’s general condition and the two tumors. The abdomen became less rigid, appetite returned, pain after eating lessened considerably. By March the tumor in the upper abdomen had reduced by more than two-thirds, the nodular condition had entirely disappeared, the pelvic tumor was scarcely palpable, and Mrs. DeCarle had gained twenty pounds. McInnis concluded the results were “decidedly remarkable” and “conclusive.”
Mr. F. Maxwell had been diagnosed in February 1932 with malignant disease of the pancreas by Dr. J. Masson Smith of Beaverton, who addressed Rene with a curt “Dear Madam” letter. Five weeks later Smith wrote again. He could not have been friendlier. Maxwell had gained seven and a half pounds, his hemoglobin was ninety percent, and he moved with vigor and alertness. Five years later Maxwell himself wrote asking Rene to treat his brother. John Tynan had been diagnosed by four doctors with rectal cancer and given about three weeks to live. The surgeons had opened him up, found they could do nothing, and sent him home to die. Within 24 hours of his first Essiac treatment he felt relief; within four days, a wonderful change. After his first few treatments he could drive himself to the clinic. Four years later he had gained 39 pounds. These were not isolated anecdotes. They were documented in physician letters, pathological reports, and sworn testimony — and the pattern they established repeated across hundreds of cases over the next five decades.
Question 7: What specific offer did Sir Frederick Banting extend to Rene in 1936, why did she refuse it, and what did she tell him about leaving her patients to inject mice?
Answer: Banting was publicly credited as the co-discoverer of insulin and ran his own research facility, the Banting Institute at the University of Toronto. His offer, extended in July 1936 after a meeting arranged by Ontario Minister of Health Dr. Faulkner, was that Rene could work under his supervision in his laboratory, performing tests on animals. “You will not be asked to divulge any secret concerning your treatment,” Banting wrote. All experimental results would be submitted to him for approval before being announced to anyone, including the newspapers or published in medical journals. The catch was that Rene would have to prove the merit of Essiac on lab animals before treating any more human patients. She would give up her clinic for months, possibly years, while she injected mice.
Rene refused. She wrote to Faulkner on August 4, 1936 explaining that her relatives and friends did not approve of her going back to animal research when she had already proven the merit of her treatment on human beings — and that they therefore absolutely refused to help her financially. Since she could not charge her patients, she had no means to carry out what she had not the means to do. She later told reporters: “I felt it was inhuman for them to ask me to give up treating patients while I showed them whether it would work on mice. I’d already done work on mice. There was a big uproar about it because the patients were terrified I would leave them, but many doctors said I should jump at the chance to work with Dr. Banting. I said I’d be willing to, but I’m not going to let people die while I do it. It was an agonizing decision, but I refused his offer.” According to Rene, Banting had told her that what he had seen of Essiac showed more promise than any other cancer treatment he had encountered, and he had been particularly impressed by one case in which a diabetic cancer patient was taken off insulin during Essiac treatment and the diabetes did not worsen — leading him to speculate that Essiac must have stimulated the pancreatic gland into functioning properly.
Question 8: How did the Bracebridge town council come to turn over the British Lion Hotel to Rene in 1935, and what did the scene at her clinic look like at its peak?
Answer: The town of Bracebridge turned the old British Lion Hotel over to Rene for use as a cancer clinic, subsidizing the arrangement partly through municipal funds. Dr. A.F. Bastedo was the physician who persuaded the Bracebridge City Council to make the decision. The red brick building sat on Dominion Street, with the town jail directly across the street — the keeper of which used to joke with Rene that he was saving her a cell. The clinic opened as the political battle over Essiac was starting to heat up, and it transformed the small lumber-and-fur-trapping town into the destination of cancer patients from across North America.
Homemaker’s magazine described the scene in the 1930s as reminiscent of the Shrine of Lourdes. Dominion Street took on an atmosphere of pilgrimage. Cars were parked solidly along the shoulders. People from all walks of life waited patiently to enter the red brick building. Some were carried. Others were pushed gently up the steps while the rest managed on their own. Ambulances shrieked their arrival as they double-parked, and Rene would be seen coming quickly down to treat a stretcher case. Always with a doctor standing by, she injected scores of patients every day. One Bracebridge boarding house ran by the mother of a man Mayor Jim Lang later knew hosted dozens upon dozens of patients at a time, staying two, three, or four months while they took treatments. People came from Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, the United States, Europe. The village of about 9,300 people became the center of a national controversy that would reach the floor of the Ontario legislature and make headlines all over the continent.
Question 9: What did Dr. Emma Carson of Los Angeles find during her month-long investigation in Bracebridge in 1937, and what did she tell the Ontario government about non-recognition?
Answer: Carson traveled from southern California in the summer of 1937 intending to stay a couple of days to satisfy herself that there was nothing to the story. Her friends who had told her about Rene were reliable people, but she arrived skeptical. She ended up staying almost a month and becoming a close friend of Rene’s. In her first interview with the Huntsville Forester a week after her arrival, she could barely contain her enthusiasm. She was “simply amazed” at what she had found in her brief investigation, and the farther she investigated, the stronger became her conviction that Rene had made a cancer treatment discovery of worldwide importance. She called upon the government to recognize Rene’s work.
Carson’s conclusion to the Ontario Medical Council, delivered through a five-page report later released to the press, was blunt: if in view of what she had seen with her own eyes the council remained indifferent, it would be “a crime against civilization.” She found that the vast majority of Rene’s patients had been brought to her after surgery, radium, X-rays, and emplastrums had failed to help, with the patients pronounced incurable or hopeless. The progress obtainable and the actual results from Essiac treatments, she wrote, and the rapidity of repair, were “absolutely marvelous, and must be seen to be believed.” As she reviewed case histories and interviewed patients, she realized her skepticism had deserted her. She said she would go directly to Premier Hepburn’s office and give him her report. She never changed her mind. She corresponded with Rene for years after returning to Los Angeles, and her report, quoted at length in several newspapers, became one of the central pieces of documentation in the public campaign that followed.
Question 10: How did public support for Rene build between 1935 and 1938 through petitions, and what did the final 55,000-signature petition precede?
Answer: The grassroots pressure built in stages, each petition larger than the last. In late 1935, local residents of the Bracebridge area rounded up thousands of signatures on petitions demanding government backing for Rene’s work, presented to Dr. Faulkner alongside a second physician petition with nine signatures that brought the licensed-doctor endorsement total to sixteen. In 1936, the mayor of Bracebridge, Wilburt Richards, visited Faulkner’s office with a group of prominent citizens and a petition of 2,700 signatures. In March 1937, a deputation went to the government offices in Toronto consisting of local officials, 40 doctors, and 18 of Rene’s patients, carrying a petition that now bore 17,000 signatures. The composition itself was telling — this was no fringe gathering but a cross-section of ministers, mayors, physicians, and recovered patients.
By early 1938, the number had reached 55,000. The petition was presented to the Private Bills Committee of the Ontario legislature as it considered a bill that would authorize Rene to treat cancer patients with Essiac. Fifty of Rene’s former patients watched from the visitor’s gallery. The debate was fierce. One of Rene’s patients stood up and yelled out that three doctors had refused to give her mother a written cancer diagnosis for Rene though they had given it verbally. The gallery erupted in cheers. The Speaker threatened to clear the room. When the vote came there was confusion, a flood of motions, and the chairman recognized a motion that the bill not be reported. A show of hands indicated a narrow margin in favor of rejecting it. Rene’s bill was defeated by three votes. Within days the Kirby Bill passed, creating the Cancer Commission and effectively criminalizing her practice. The 55,000 signatures had come within three legislators of making her the first private citizen in Canadian history to be licensed by statute to practice medicine without the proper credentials.
Question 11: What happened in the Ontario Private Bills Committee in March 1938, and how was Rene’s bill defeated?
Answer: The committee considered a bill that would authorize Rene to treat cancer patients with Essiac. The 55,000-signature petition was presented. Fifty of Rene’s former patients watched from the visitor’s gallery. J. Frank Kelly, the MP from the Bracebridge area and an ardent backer, argued that Rene had been “hounded around the country for years like a criminal” and that even if she had no cure, she could prolong life — just as Sir Frederick Banting could prolong life with insulin without curing diabetes. L.M. Frost asked whether Rene was not already carrying on. Kelly answered that she was, but without fee and without recognition. Rene’s lawyer John Garrick claimed that doctors were refusing to give diagnoses to patients wanting Rene’s treatment and that a cabal had been organized against her. Some MPs shouted “Untrue” and “Shame.” At that, one of Rene’s patients stood up and declared that three doctors had refused to give her mother a written diagnosis though they had given it verbally. The gallery erupted. Speaker David Croll threatened to clear the room.
Dr. M.T. Armstrong, MP from Parry Sound, said he had talked to practically every medical doctor in the legislature and there was not one against her. W.A. Summerville said he had heard from all sorts of people claiming to have been helped. T.F. Stevenson, whose wife had been treated, made an impassioned plea: “Why hold this woman up? You won’t do any harm by passing this bill and it’s inhuman to stop it.” Rene herself spoke, declaring she would submit her formula to any investigating commission on one condition — that the medical profession admit Essiac had merit based on the results she had already obtained. When the time for the vote came, newspaper accounts described confusion, many voices speaking at once, and a flood of motions. The chairman recognized a motion that “the bill be not reported,” and a show of hands indicated a narrow margin in favor of rejecting it. The newspapers reported that Rene’s bill had been defeated by three votes.
Question 12: What was the Kirby Bill, and how did Minister of Health Harold Kirby’s public assurances contradict the law’s actual operation?
Answer: The Kirby Bill passed into law within days of the Private Bills Committee’s defeat of Rene’s bill. It created a Royal Cancer Commission with authority to investigate unorthodox cancer treatments and, after finishing its investigation, to compel Rene to turn over her formula. It effectively criminalized the practice of medicine by anyone treating cancer without proper credentials. Rene immediately announced that because of the Kirby Bill she was closing her clinic. The press and the public flocked to Kirby’s door. Kirby publicly stated that nothing in the Act prevented Rene from carrying on as she had been doing in the past, and that she was in the same position after the bill as before it. He told reporters this directly and put it in writing to Rene’s lawyer.
Rene called it nonsense. Dr. Noble of the College of Physicians and Surgeons had informed her that they were going to demand her formula if she kept the clinic open. She knew the law was the law, and if the government wanted her to open her clinic, they should change the law. The clinic remained closed. The pattern that followed went on for the better part of two years. Rene would close, saying the Kirby Bill made her a criminal. Kirby would publicly deny the law was being enforced and urge her to reopen. Patients would weep, faint, and plead. Mayors would send angry telegrams to Premier Hepburn. Rene would reopen. Someone would then frighten her that Kirby was coming after her, and she would close again. The Bracebridge Gazette editorialized that if a cancer sufferer died while the clinic was closed there would be a veritable roar of bitter condemnation and the target would not be Rene. The Kirby Bill was still the law. The government had publicly promised not to enforce it. Both conditions remained in place simultaneously, which was precisely how the government had designed the arrangement.
Question 13: What was the structure of the 1938-39 Royal Cancer Commission hearings, how many patients came to testify, and how many were permitted to speak?
Answer: Six physicians with expertise in diagnostics, surgery, and radiology were named as members in late August 1938. The chairman was J.G. Gillanders, an Ontario Supreme Court Justice. They were charged with investigating several unorthodox cancer treatments in use in Canada, but the focus was clearly on Rene and Essiac. Preliminary sworn and secret testimony was taken from several patients in Bracebridge in February 1939 by two Commission members with Dr. B.L. Guyatt serving as mediator. The main event was scheduled for early March 1939: public hearings before the full Commission at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto. Rene’s supporters mobilized. So many came that Rene had to rent one of the hotel’s ballrooms as a gathering place.
Among those present were 387 former patients from across Canada, prepared to wait their turn to be sworn to oath and tell their stories. The Commission was not interested in hearing from 387 witnesses. Commissioner Valin complained, “She’s got an army of people here.” Ultimately, pleading the pressures of time, the Commission allowed only 49 to testify. The remaining 338 waited in the ballroom and were sent home. The hundreds of pages of transcript from those 49 sworn witnesses are filled with heart-rending testimony — complete recoveries after near-death, partial recoveries when all else had failed, the consistent theme of pain relief within days. George Mahon testified, “She helped me. If it was not for her, I would be buried.” Elizabeth Stewart told how her doctor had sent her home two years earlier to make out her will; now she was milking five cows morning and night, running a boarding house, and doing it all herself. The structure guaranteed that the record would be incomplete — 338 witnesses whose cases were never heard, their testimony never entered, their existence noted only in the ballroom count.
Question 14: What did May Henderson, Eliza Veitch, Augusta Douglas, and other sworn witnesses testify to under oath before the Commission?
Answer: May Henderson’s testimony was perhaps the most dramatic. After thirty years of chronic ill health, her doctors told her that her whole body was riddled with cancer and that they would have to remove both breasts and most of her insides. She was not up to the torture of that and basically gave up on living. “My eyes just looked like stones, and I simply hadn’t any life in me. I couldn’t walk.” Someone told her about Rene. She dragged herself to a doctor for the required signed diagnosis — he told her it was useless, she would not last long anyway, but he gave her the paper. Right away she noticed a wonderful change. She slept better, ate better, and after about 65 treatments was able to take temporary work. Asked if she regarded herself as cured, she answered: “Well, pretty nearly.” She was still alive and corresponding with Rene nearly forty years later.
Eliza Veitch had been operated on in 1935 for cancer of the bladder. The cancer returned and she gradually went downhill, unable to stand on her feet without terrible pain. She refused further treatment, deciding to die rather than be tortured again. In May 1938 she went to Rene after seeing neighbors cured. For eight treatments she noticed no change, then had a bad reaction that proved to be the turning point. “I owe my life to Miss Caisse. I would have been dead and in my grave months ago.” Augusta Douglas had been diagnosed with cervical cancer in August 1938 and told she needed radium. She refused — “With my boots on.” She was carried to Bracebridge on a mattress in the back of a car, unable to tolerate any jolt. After six weeks flat on her back in bed receiving treatments, then eight weeks of weekly 220-mile round trips, her doctor told her the results were marvelous and worth a million. Clara Thornbury weighed 72 pounds when her husband carried her into the clinic; she later weighed 107 and did her own housework. Annie Bonar was scheduled for arm amputation at 90 pounds; four months later she was back to 150 and her arm was fine. Each story carried the same architecture — written off by physicians, near death, recovery under Essiac, years of continued life.
Question 15: What did the Commission’s December 1939 Interim Report conclude, and what did the contradiction in its final paragraph — dismissing Essiac while still asking for the formula — reveal?
Answer: The report dismissed several diagnoses of cancer as incorrect or produced letters from doctors disavowing their own prior diagnoses. Other cases were ruled cured by previous radium or X-ray treatments — Dr. Richards maintained that even when long periods had elapsed between radium and Rene’s treatments, and even when recurrences had appeared in between, the radium was still working and was responsible for the cure. If the patient died, however, radium had nothing to do with it. “In the 49 cases presented there were only 4 in which the diagnosis was accepted and in which recovery occurred apparently from Miss Caisse’s treatment,” the report stated. But even in those four cases, the Commission later received signed statements calling into question the validity of the cure — in one, a signed statement from the surgeon declaring the growth he had removed was not cancer. The report was tortuously written and designed to deny any credit to Rene. It implied that only 49 people had stepped forward “out of this large practice,” completely ignoring the 338 others sent home from the ballroom.
The contradiction came in the final paragraph. Having dismissed Essiac for once and for all, the Commission wrote: “If, however, Miss Caisse is desirous of having her treatment further investigated, and wishes to submit thereon further evidence, and is prepared to furnish the Commission with the formula of ‘Essiac,’ together with samples thereof, the Commission will be glad to make such investigation.” The commissioners had said repeatedly that they only wanted to investigate remedies that might hold promise. They had better things to do with the Commission’s budget than pursue worthless remedies. Yet in the paragraph after they tried to write off Essiac for all time, there it was again: give us the formula. The contradiction revealed the operation of the whole exercise. The Report’s purpose was never to determine whether Essiac worked. It was to produce an official document discrediting the remedy while continuing to extract the formula from the only person who held it.
Question 16: What was the Catch-22 at the heart of the formula standoff, and what was Rene’s reasoning for refusing offers from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the National Cancer Institute, Merck, Parke Davis, and private corporations?
Answer: The structure of the standoff never changed across six decades. Rene would release the formula only after the medical and governmental institutions admitted that Essiac had merit as a cancer treatment. The institutions would admit merit only after Rene released the formula so they could study it. Dr. Charles Brusch summarized Sloan-Kettering’s position: “They said to her, ‘You’d better send us more material and the formula.’” Rene’s response was always the same. Admit the merit based on what she had already demonstrated — the physician letters, the case files, the thousands of recovered patients — and the formula would follow. The institutions refused. The remedy sat suspended in the gap.
Rene had two concrete fears. The first was that the medical establishment would exploit Essiac — charge exorbitant prices to make a fortune, place it beyond the means of the poor. The second was that it would be discredited and buried. She saw both possibilities as roughly equally likely and both as outcomes she could not accept. She rejected Ernest H. Ashley’s 1932 contract offer of $20,000 the first year, a $2,000 salary, and $100,000 in operating capital. She rejected the 1937 Buffalo businessmen’s offer of $100,000 the first year, $50,000 annually, 50% of all sums received, and a sweetener of a $1 million “donation.” She rejected Merck’s demand that she turn over the formula so they could make up their minds in their own way in their own time. She rejected Sir Frederick Banting’s offer to work in his lab. She rejected Memorial Sloan-Kettering repeatedly. In hindsight, Glum argues, Rene should have given the formula to anyone, anywhere, at any time, who wanted it for any reason, on the grounds that the more people who had it, the better the chance that truth would out. But the fear that drove her refusal was not paranoia. She had watched the Canadian government and the medical association try to crush her work for forty years. Her fears were calibrated to what she had seen with her own eyes.
Question 17: What did Rene write in April 1940 to Parke Davis about her hemorrhage-stopping preparation, and what does that letter show about her instincts?
Answer: Rene wrote to the general manager of Parke Davis — a huge American pharmaceutical corporation — on April 3, 1940, a few months after Hitler invaded Poland and World War II broke out. She explained that she had a solution she used effectively to stop hemorrhaging and had been using it as long as she had been treating cancer. Someone had pointed out how valuable this would be in wartime for treating soldiers. It would stop any bleeding almost instantly. She had affidavits from many patients to this effect, and Dr. B.L. Guyatt had specifically mentioned it in connection with her treatment. She wondered if the company would be interested, and whether they could suggest any way this could be made available for use in hospitals overseas, first aid stations, and soldiers’ kits. She closed: “I never thought of this as a separate discovery; it was just a part of my treatment of cancer cases, but now I feel that I should make every effort to make this available to all those who need it.”
The letter captures something essential about Rene that gets lost in the long record of her fights over Essiac. During her political battles of the 1930s she had never boasted of, or even claimed, any special hemorrhage-stopping solution. It was just part of her cancer treatment. She had not developed it to patent, to sell, or to leverage. The Second World War began, and her first instinct was that soldiers were going to be bleeding on battlefields and she had something that could help them. She wrote to a major American pharmaceutical corporation offering it. There is no record of what Parke Davis did with the letter. What the letter shows is a woman who, four months after the Cancer Commission had dismissed her life’s work in a tortuously written report, was still looking for ways to be useful. The formula standoff over Essiac was never, for her, about the formula. It was about where the formula would end up. For a preparation she had never fought over, she simply offered it.
Question 18: What did Ralph Daigh and Paul Murphy find when they interviewed the three Bracebridge doctors — Bastedo, Ellis, and Grieg — in 1959, and what pattern emerged across the three conversations?
Answer: Dr. A.F. Bastedo was the physician who had persuaded the Bracebridge City Council in 1935 to turn over the British Lion Hotel to Rene for her clinic. When Daigh and Murphy appeared at his porch on a Sunday morning asking to discuss Rene, Bastedo was extremely uncooperative, even rude. “I will not discuss her in any manner.” When Daigh persisted, Bastedo said, “You will get no help from me or any other doctor, I don’t think.” He turned his back and walked across the street to his garage, apparently to drive off to church. Dr. E.G. Ellis, in his late 70s and still practicing, graciously invited them into his house but became disturbed when they explained their purpose. He answered their questions with extreme economy of words. Asked if he had ever signed a petition for Rene, he denied it. Daigh had the original in his briefcase. Asked if he had ever sent patients to Rene, he denied it. Daigh had the case histories showing he had. Daigh chose not to confront him with either document. Ellis intimated strongly that it was not a good thing for a doctor in Canada to discuss Rene in any way, and that it would be very bad for any doctor who admitted faith in her treatment or admitted sending her patients.
Daigh then asked Ellis three direct questions. Did he think Rene was a charlatan or a fraud? No. Did he think she was only after money? No. If not those, then she must be a psychotic — did he believe that? “No, she is not a psychotic. She is a sincere, well-balanced person.” Then Murphy asked whether Rene’s preparation should be evaluated scientifically and clinically. Ellis paused briefly, then: an emphatic “Yes.” Dr. E.M. Grieg, a bachelor in his late 70s and for many years one of the leading doctors in the community, showed extreme reluctance to discuss Rene at all. He denied knowledge of her activities, denied having ever sent her patients, denied signing a petition — all documented in Daigh’s briefcase. Then he surprisingly admitted that he knew of a case of stomach ulcers Rene had cured, a man he had been patient of. Asked the same three-part question, Grieg too answered: not a charlatan, not after money, not psychotic. She was “a well-intentioned woman, who thought she had a cure.” Should Essiac be investigated by a qualified laboratory? “I think it would be a good thing to test it once and for all.” The pattern across all three was identical: public denial, private admission, no coherent dismissal available, and an underlying truth none of them would speak aloud — that doctors in Canada had been forbidden to discuss Rene Caisse, and the prohibition was being enforced thirty years later.
Question 19: What happened at the Brusch Medical Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts beginning in May 1959, and what did Dr. Charles McClure and Dr. Charles Brusch conclude about Essiac after three months of clinical observation?
Answer: Rene flew to Boston on May 22, 1959 and was given a comfortable apartment in the Commander Hotel in Cambridge, not far from the Brusch Medical Center. Three rooms — waiting room, dispensary, treatment room — were made available for her use. Her treatments were supervised by Dr. Brusch’s director of research, Dr. Charles McClure, who personally maintained the case history files. Dr. Brusch himself was no fringe practitioner. In 1955 he had administered the first polio vaccine in Cambridge. He had treated John F. Kennedy for Addison’s disease; Kennedy laid the cornerstone to Brusch’s medical clinic. His patients included former House Speaker John McCormack. The Brusch Medical Center was one of the largest medical clinics in Massachusetts. Patients treated during Rene’s three months there included Lena Burcell, with metastatic breast cancer in the lung, whose ability to breathe improved markedly within her first treatment; John Cronin, with inoperable right lung cancer, who could climb several flights of stairs without discomfort after seven treatments; Wilbur Dymond, with prostate cancer, whose hardness vanished except for one small nodule; and Russell McCassey, with basal cell carcinoma of the right cheek, whose lesion was healed after seven weeks.
McClure wrote: “After having personally observed Miss Caisse administer her remedy for cancer on known cases of malignancy for about three months, and the results of such administration, I am certain the remedy is efficacious.” The sense of well-being engendered in patients was heartening and easily noticed. The return of strength and will to do, obvious. The relief from pain was possibly the most dramatic change. In cases of cutaneous cancer the evidence of quick healing and regeneration was visible and positive. The final joint report by McClure and Brusch concluded that on mice Essiac had caused a decided recession of the mass and a definite change in cell formation. On patients suffering from pathologically proven cancer, it reduced pain, caused recession in growths, patients gained weight, and showed improvement in general health. “This, after only three months’ tests and the proof Miss Caisse has to show of the many patients she has benefited in the past 25 years, has convinced the doctors at the Brusch Medical Center that Essiac has merit in the treatment of cancer.” The doctors did not say Essiac was a cure. They said it was of benefit, non-toxic, and administered both orally and by intramuscular injection. Dr. Brusch would remain an outspoken advocate for the rest of Rene’s life and beyond.
Question 20: What did Memorial Sloan-Kettering find in its 1959 and 1975 mouse experiments, and why did Rene terminate the agreement in 1976?
Answer: In mid-June 1959, during Rene’s time at the Brusch Medical Center, the first group of mice treated with Essiac was returned to Sloan-Kettering. According to Dr. Brusch’s records, Dr. Philip C. Merker of Sloan-Kettering called to report that Sloan-Kettering was very interested in what it was seeing — namely, a physiological change in the cancer growth characterized as “a tendency of the cancer cells to amalgamate and localize.” Then Sloan-Kettering said it would need the formula to continue any further studies. The familiar Catch-22 closed, and the collaboration ended. Fourteen years later, in 1973, when Rene was 85, she contacted Sloan-Kettering herself and asked whether they wanted to renew the testing. Dr. Chester Stock, a vice president and associate director for administrative and academic affairs, agreed to run tests on mice if she would send material. She sent one of the herbs — the one her earlier Christie Street experiments had identified as responsible for tumor regressions — along with detailed instructions for preparing an injectable solution.
On June 10, 1975, Stock wrote: “Enclosed are test data in two experiments indicating some regressions in sarcoma 180 of mice treated with Essiac. With these results we will wish to test enough more that I should ask if you can send more material.” The next sentence written by a top Sloan-Kettering official in 1975 — “two experiments indicating some regressions in sarcoma 180 of mice treated with Essiac” — should alone have been enough to warrant serious investigation. Yet the tests then came to a halt the next year. Other results were coming out negative. When Rene received an explanation of how Sloan-Kettering was preparing the injectable solution, she was horrified. They had ignored her instructions. They were not boiling the herb. They were freezing it, then thawing it. She wrote on their explanation in angry scrawl: “All wrong. Rene M. Caisse.” She terminated the agreement. Three years later, in a sworn affidavit in the 1978 Detroit federal class action suit seeking to legalize Essiac importation, Stock admitted: “After our testing was done we were informed that we should have had two preparations for test and also that we made improperly the injection solution from the dried material supplied to us. We were never provided full information about the nature of Essiac.”
Question 21: How did the 1977 Homemaker’s magazine investigation come about, what did its reporters conclude, and what was the executive vice president’s turning-point admission?
Answer: In 1977 the editors of Homemaker’s, a nationally distributed Canadian magazine based in Toronto, heard an awesome story: an 88-year-old nurse from Bracebridge had been successfully treating terminally ill cancer patients for 50 years with her secret herbal formula. By its own account, the magazine assigned a team of very skeptical reporters to investigate. What they discovered over the next six months caused a profound transformation in their attitude. The Summer 1977 issue reported: “Essentially, Rene’s story was true. She had been getting remarkable results against many kinds of cancer with Essiac, and she had been prevented from carrying on treatment unless she revealed the formula.” Until the last moment the staff had real reservations about publishing a story that would give false hope to cancer patients. The knowledge that their decision would possibly cause traffic jams in Bracebridge as the public beat a pathway to an old lady’s door did not help. But the consequences of not publishing were too ghastly to contemplate.
The editor described asking colleagues individually when their skepticism had crumbled. They all had the same answer. Shearer, the magazine’s executive vice president, was the last person queried: “It was the day I realized that if I was told I had cancer, I would visit Rene. It wouldn’t be the only thing I’d do. Hell, I’d try anything — the works, conventional and otherwise — but I’d go see Rene first.” The reporters interviewed Dr. Chester Stock at Sloan-Kettering, Dr. Charles Brusch, former patients who had testified in 1939 — Tony Baziuk, May Henderson at 81 — all still alive and still crediting Essiac. The article caused an immediate sensation in Canadian media. Newspapers picked up the story. Television crews arrived in Bracebridge. Rene’s two phones rang around the clock. She received threats from people demanding the formula and had to accept police protection. The article concluded: “There’s a tragic and shameful irony in the Essiac tale. In the beginning, a simple herbal recipe was freely shared by an Indian who understood that the blessings of the Creator belong to all. In the hands of more sophisticated (and allegedly more ‘civilized’) healers, it was made the focus of an ugly struggle for ownership and power.”
Question 22: What was the Resperin Corporation arrangement in 1977, how much did Rene receive, and what happened when the Canadian government shut down Resperin’s tests in 1982?
Answer: The most significant breakthrough of Rene’s defenses — perhaps in her whole life — was made by Dr. David Fingard, a handsome and well-dressed man of about 70 who could really turn on the charm. Fingard was a vice president of the Resperin Corporation, a Canadian company with interests in the pharmaceutical field. Resperin had physicians on its board of directors, including Dr. Matthew Dymond, who had once been Ontario Minister of Health — the official Rene had complained to about government harassment in the late 1950s. After reading the Homemaker’s article, Fingard met with Rene and did his own research. He came out of it wildly enthusiastic and shared that enthusiasm with her. In the fall of 1977, Rene was persuaded to turn over the formula to Resperin. Her contract granted her $1.00 upon signing and $250 a week for the six months Resperin agreed to conduct tests. She was 89. She believed Resperin was big enough and powerful enough to prove Essiac’s legitimacy. She was tired of battling the medical establishment.
What was initially supposed to be a six-month study dragged on for years. Within months Rene complained publicly: “I think I was able to accomplish more myself.” She charged Resperin with carelessness. In 1982 the Canadian government shut down Resperin’s tests, calling them flawed and accusing Resperin of poor quality control. The director of the Canadian Health and Welfare Department’s bureau of prescription drugs admitted there was no concern about Essiac’s safety — it was safe, all right — but said they could not call it an effective treatment. Patients already using Essiac would be allowed to continue, purely on humanitarian grounds. Future patients who could fight their way through the bureaucracy might also be allowed legal access. Ed Zalesky of Surrey, British Columbia, a cancer patient who had been given six months to two years in 1977 and was still alive and working full-time in 1987, wrote to a newspaper: “That Essiac gives relief from suffering in many cases and prolongs life there is no doubt. Why can’t the people who administer the cancer funds give it a fair trial? It isn’t going to hurt anyone.” Fingard told the press Resperin could sell Essiac as an herbal tea if they made no curative claims. He refused. “We don’t want to sell it as a tea through stores. The only way we want to sell it is as a cure.”
Question 23: How did Dr. Charles Brusch’s own 1973 cancer and his continued use of Essiac shape his willingness to speak publicly, and what did he say about the medical establishment’s silence?
Answer: Brusch mentioned the cancer almost in passing during his meeting with Glum. In 1973 he had cancer. He had three operations. “I had the Essiac, and so I was able to take it and I’m still taking it now. And I had a test done a few months ago, and I’ve been negative.” He was convinced Essiac had played an important role in keeping him free of cancer. The admission transformed what Brusch was willing to say about the remedy. He had treated it for nearly thirty years as a physician observing other people’s recoveries. He now spoke of it as a patient whose life it had helped preserve. In his conversation with Glum he said without hesitation: “I know Essiac has curing potential. It can lessen the condition of the individual, control it, and it can cure it.” As far as Brusch was concerned, after being involved with Essiac since 1959, this was a well-established matter of fact. The cancer establishment ignoring it did not change that fact one bit.
Asked why, after all these years and all these cases, the governments, pharmaceutical corporations, and cancer research institutions had failed to give Essiac the serious research it so obviously deserved, Brusch hesitated for the first time in a ninety-minute talk. His cryptic remarks were an attempt to communicate without directly saying what he believed. “The trouble is… all these centers that have gotten a tremendous amount of grants and done tremendous amounts of work, you don’t seem to see much difference. These other companies, I can’t understand. Sloan-Kettering, they tell you there’s a recession in the growth of the carcinoma and keep wanting medicine, well, there’s some merit to it. You’ve got to wonder. Is it for mercenary acts? A lot of reports have been written about cancer and all and always a hope of getting close to it, but we don’t get anywhere. The medications you can buy now — well, the action of that medication, a lot of it, isn’t good. But they’re making a great penny on it. Why should they go ahead and — I don’t know. It surprises me. A lot of people are getting large sums.” Then he returned to Essiac itself and the enthusiasm returned. “I know: the stuff works. It’s very inexpensive. You can get a gallon of the stuff for about $40. Just try and get radiation and chemotherapy and see what it’ll cost you.”
Question 24: What did Patrick McGrail’s eleven-year survival after esophageal cancer surgery and Ross Nimchick’s documented lymphoma reversal demonstrate in Dr. Brusch’s files?
Answer: Patrick “Sonny” McGrail was operated on at New England Baptist Hospital in February 1975 for esophageal cancer. After the operation he was given radiation. His weight dropped to 109 pounds. He called Brusch: “Will you please see me? I’m going to die. I can’t eat. I can’t sleep. I’m losing weight. I’ve got severe pain. I’ll be dead in two years.” Brusch loaded him up with Essiac, vitamins, and nutrition. McGrail improved steadily, went up to 125 pounds. Years later his surgeon wrote in his hospital report: “Mr. McGrail is doing well and essentially asymptomatic and looks better than he has over the past couple of years. We are delighted with his progress.” In February 1979 McGrail wrote to Brusch himself: “I was just using it one week when I started to improve and put on weight. I went from 109 to 130 pounds in six months, and the pain eased. If Dr. Brusch did not give it to me, I would not be alive today.” Twelve years after his cancer diagnosis — in May 1987 — McGrail wrote: “I am still being treated by Dr. Brusch for my cancer of 11 years and am doing good. When I was operated on, they said I would not live two years. The Essiac worked wonders.” Brusch summarized the case in a single line: “It was the Essiac that does the trick.”
Ross Nimchick’s lymphoma case was even more recent and even more precisely documented. In June 1986 he came down with a cold, loss of voice, and swollen glands with a lump near his left collarbone and in the groin area. By late July, biopsy results confirmed malignant lymphoma, and Dr. Ross staged him as third-to-fourth stage. Beginning September 3 he started vitamins and a food program. Beginning September 12 he began Essiac, two ounces mixed in two ounces of warm water, all water purified by reverse osmosis. By October 2 the sweating had stopped and he felt stronger. In February 1987 his nodes had decreased by about 50%. By March 2, 1987, his white and red blood counts were normal — Dr. Ross had the test re-run, assuming an error, and got the same result. Nodes under his left armpit were gone. Nodes under his right armpit, both groins, and his neck had decreased by about 95%. On May 30, 1987 Nimchick wrote to Brusch: “I remember how tired and weak I used to feel. But today I am strong, full of energy and back to my old self prior to having lymphoma. Your program with Essiac has returned me to 100% health.” The hospital records in Brusch’s file corroborated every step. Both cases carried the architecture Brusch wanted on record: pathological diagnosis documented, timeline documented, outcome documented, verifiable at every point.
Question 25: What was Rene’s theory of how Essiac worked, how did she describe the body’s response to abnormal cells, and what did she believe about cancer as a systemic rather than localized condition?
Answer: Rene described her theory to Ralph Daigh in April 1959 in terms she had refined across decades of clinical observation. “Occasionally nature makes an error in cell construction, and when this cell attempts to fit into the pattern to which it is assigned, it is repelled by the healthy cells with a violence only nature is capable of producing. The natural tendency of the normal cells is to throw out, destroy or consume the unnatural cell, and if the body is strong enough, this fact is accomplished. If, however, the abnormal cell is strong enough to get a foothold in the human body, and the normal cells cannot throw it out or surround it and thus inhibit it, the cells in that particular area go wild and the body destroys itself in that area with a cancerous growth. My remedy, in some way I do not understand and am unable to explain, strengthens the natural defense mechanisms of the body and enables the normal cells to destroy the abnormal cell as nature might expect a strong body to do.” She noted that Essiac also seemed to weaken abnormal cells directly, since she had observed the sloughing off of great masses of diseased tissue from cancer of the breast, rectum, and internal cancers. She was forced to look upon Essiac as a great tonic and giver of strength to the body so that nature was aided in removing abnormalities of growth — stomach ulcers, goiter, hemorrhoids, and cancer.
Her view of cancer itself was that it was systemic, not localized. She wrote many times in essays and letters that cancer is spread through the body via the blood stream, and that surgery, radium, or X-rays targeted specifically at the area of a tumor was attacking the symptom and not the cause. A healthy system purified by healthy blood would not sustain a cancerous tumor. In a diseased system, if the tumor was surgically removed or destroyed with radium, the cancer would eventually reappear elsewhere unless the system was cleaned out and purified. Some of the herbs in Essiac acted as blood purifiers — attacking the cause rather than the symptoms. In one essay she wrote: “There are those of us who feel that cancer is more than a local disturbance in some distant organ of the body. This was impressed on me very deeply when, after making the rounds of a cancer ward in one of our best treatment centers, the surgeon in charge said to me: ‘This is not the answer.’” The theory was straightforward, offered without pretension, and framed in the humility of someone who said plainly she did not fully understand the mechanism. The clinical results across six decades were what she asked others to look at.
Question 26: What did the chemotherapy warnings on Fluorouracil and the Washington Post reporting on 150 experimental cancer drugs reveal about the toxicity accepted as normal in conventional treatment?
Answer: One of the commonly administered cancer drugs is Fluorouracil, 5-FU. The manufacturer’s brochure carries this warning: “Precautions: Fluorouracil is a highly toxic drug with a narrow margin of safety. Therefore, patients should be carefully supervised since therapeutic response is unlikely to occur without some evidence of toxicity. Severe hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and even death may result from the fluorouracil despite meticulous selection of patients and careful adjustment of dosage.” The warning accepts as a working assumption that therapeutic benefit is unlikely without evidence that the drug is poisoning the patient. Death is listed among the possible outcomes “despite meticulous selection of patients and careful adjustment of dosage.” This is a drug approved for widespread clinical use against cancer, labeled by its manufacturer.
The 1981 Washington Post reporting went further. Over the previous decade, more than 150 experimental drugs had been given to tens of thousands of cancer patients under sponsorship of the U.S. Federal Government’s National Cancer Institute. Many of these drugs had come from a list of highly toxic industrial chemicals — pesticides, herbicides, and dyes. The experimental drugs had led to hundreds of deaths and a nightmarish list of serious adverse reactions: kidney failure, liver failure, heart failure, respiratory distress, destruction of bone marrow so the body could no longer make blood, brain damage, paralysis, seizure, coma, visual hallucinations. In some cases the experimental drug actually stimulated tumor growth rather than stopping the cancer. In other tests, the experimental drug itself caused cancer. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration official told the Post : “We knew from the beginning that this caused toxicity in animals. Almost all investigational cancer drugs are highly toxic.” Rene’s response to this landscape was blunt: “Chemotherapy should be a criminal offense,” she told one reporter. The contrast with Essiac stood on the record. Not even her worst enemies ever argued that patients were hurt by drinking the tea. Every investigator who looked at it — including the 1982 Canadian government officials who shut down Resperin — agreed Essiac was safe. The question was whether non-toxicity combined with six decades of clinical results was worth investigating. The answer kept coming back no.
Question 27: What historical precedents exist for plant-derived medicines entering accepted practice — cinchona bark, foxglove, periwinkle, white willow bark — and what does the NOVA documentary statistic about 80% of the human population reveal?
Answer: South American Indians treated fevers, especially malarial fevers, with a tea made from cinchona bark long before science could explain why it worked. Scientists eventually discovered that cinchona bark was nature’s source of quinine, the standard antimalarial for generations. Digitalis, which comes from the leaves of the foxglove plant, became an important heart medication. Since the 1950s doctors have used vincristine, an alkaloid from the periwinkle evergreen plant, in the treatment of childhood leukemia and other cancers. For centuries American Indians treated various aches and pains with an herbal tea made from white willow bark. It must have seemed terribly primitive to the first doctors who heard of it. They were trusting their science; the Indians were trusting nature. Eventually science caught up. Synthesized and refined white willow bark is the basis for what we call aspirin. Science did not discover that vitamin C prevented scurvy — English sailors discovered it without knowing it, taking lemons and limes on long voyages, which is why they came to be called “limeys.” Science did not even discover vitamin C until 1932.
A 1987 NOVA documentary on “The Hidden Power of Plants” aired on the Public Broadcasting System stated: “The history of medicine has been largely the story of plants and the potent chemicals they produce. Around the world, traditional healers, using plant medications, provide health care to eighty percent of the human population — over four billion people.” The same documentary reported that over 25 percent of the drugs prescribed in the United States still contain plant materials as their principal active ingredients. The pattern across every one of these cases is the same. Traditional knowledge identifies a plant that works. The medical establishment dismisses it as primitive folk belief for a period that may run decades or centuries. Eventually science catches up, isolates an active compound, patents it, and markets it. In the case of white willow bark the lag was centuries. In the case of vitamin C the gap between English sailors and the laboratory was more than a hundred years. There is nothing exceptional about Rene’s claim that an herbal tea from an Ojibwa medicine man had medicinal value. The exception, and the scandal, is that this one did not get the laboratory investigation the others eventually received. The medical establishment’s position across the twentieth century was that living proof — testimony of ordinary individuals, even sworn to oath — did not meet the standards of scientific proof. The question Rene’s story poses is why, when living proof arrived accompanied by physician letters, documented case files, parliamentary testimony, and three decades of Dr. Brusch’s clinical records, the laboratory investigation still did not come.
Question 28: What did Rene write in her 1960s pamphlets and essays warning about pesticides, food additives, chemical processing, and nuclear fallout, and how did her warnings compare to Rachel Carson’s later work?
Answer: By the late 1950s, with the same prescience as Rachel Carson who won international fame for her book Silent Spring, Rene was writing in her personal essays warning about agricultural pesticides and food preservatives, about the chemicals being sprayed into the environment. Five years before scientific fear of Strontium 90 in radioactive fallout persuaded President Kennedy to sign the treaty against atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, Rene was writing essays warning of the dangers from nuclear testing. She was ahead of the public conversation on both subjects by half a decade or more, working alone in a small town in northern Ontario, drawing conclusions from what she had seen in forty years of treating cancer patients. Her instinct was that the environment was being poisoned, that food was being poisoned, and that the body — her terrain, though she did not use the word — was increasingly unable to maintain itself under the accumulating load.
In her “I Was Canada’s Cancer Nurse” pamphlet produced in her spare time in the 1960s and 1970s, she railed against poisoned additives, chemical processing of flours and oils and fats, and chemical aging of such foods as cheese. She urged people to take four steps. Do not eat these foods if alternatives are available. Urge governments to take action against these conditions. Read the labels — especially the small print — on everything you buy to eat or drink. Patronize manufacturers who produce foods without added colors and other additives, and who grow foods in soil not contaminated with chemicals, where they do not use poisonous sprays. The guidance would read as current health-food advice today. In the 1960s it was uncommon. What distinguishes her warnings from Carson’s is that Rene had spent four decades watching individual bodies trying to survive the chemical load. She was not writing from the position of a scientist examining ecosystems. She was writing from the position of a cancer nurse who had seen thousands of patients and who had come to believe, by the end of her life, that cancer was a condition of accumulating insult to a body no longer able to clear what was being poured into it. Her essays never reached a mass audience. The warnings sit on the record alongside Carson’s and arrived earlier.
Question 29: What did the anonymous Caisse relative tell Gary Glum about the family’s private knowledge, and what did he mean by saying “she had a cure for cancer… We all knew”?
Answer: The relative was in his eighties, healthy and alert, with a lifetime of experience across several continents. He had refused to let his name be used, refused the tape recorder initially, had been afraid for his family, afraid for his business, afraid of the authorities. For years he had not shared what he knew even with his own friends. Hearing that someone was finally writing a book about Rene was enough to prompt him to talk. He wanted to talk. He drove to Glum’s motel one night and spent two hours reminiscing. He could remember the clinic, remember people waiting there, remember Rene in her nurse’s uniform, very professional and highly regarded. One of his aunts had cancer of the breast — doctors had given up on her, she was carried into the clinic — and she was still alive decades later. The relative himself had taken Essiac on and off all his life as a tonic. He described Rene as always cheery, with a good sense of humor, strong-willed and strong physically — he thought the reason she lasted as long as she did was that she had a goal in life, letting the world know about Essiac so people could get better by it.
Then he said the thing he had been waiting to say. “She had a cure for cancer. She has got a cure for cancer. We all knew. A lot of the family were cured. I think even maybe Valleen has been cured. We knew that she could cure cancer, and I think something that we were always afraid of — every single one of us — was the fact that we knew somebody in the family who could cure cancer and that this cancer cure was going to die with Rene. We weren’t going to be able to be cured someday in the future. Rene was afraid of that, too. She wanted to make sure that the family was looked after. The frustration of having the cure, but not being able to talk about it was terrible. Terrible. What can we do to help her? How can we help?” He felt the Cancer Society was a farce, a money-making scheme that would be an everlasting money-making scheme as long as a cure for cancer was never found. As far as the medical association was concerned, the doctors did not dare breathe a word. He thought the reason Rene finally released the formula to Resperin was because they promised they would actually use it on human beings. He was not sure she had lived long enough to realize that Resperin was not getting very far. “I’ve often wondered, is this formula just going to evaporate? Is nothing going to happen with it? I feel very bad about it, very sad. We need to be able to give to humanity what’s there, what is available right in front of us, and nobody is doing it. The very fact that this thing may die, it’s just making me sick. Just making me sick.”
Question 30: How did Gary Glum come into possession of the formula in 1985-86, what persuaded him of its validity, and why did he choose to release it through a videotape rather than printing it in the book?
Answer: In 1985 Glum was running a thriving chiropractic practice in Los Angeles treating professional athletes, world-class weight lifters, members of NFL teams. He had never heard of Essiac. A friend introduced him to a woman who was striking in how private she was. Small and raw-boned, obviously having lost weight, she gave the impression of great fragility — a balance between life and disappearance from life. As they came to trust each other she began telling him about Rene Caisse and Essiac. She had met Rene years earlier when she had gone to her for cancer treatment. She had been in remission ever since. She regarded it as a miracle. Eventually she admitted Rene had left her a copy of the formula. Glum began gently trying to persuade her to trust him with it. Their conversations stretched over almost a year, interrupted by days or weeks of withdrawal and silence. The break came during one of those periods of hiatus. He got an indistinct message on his answering machine: “Come now.” He flew to the city where she lived. When he arrived at her home there was a soft silence, then she stirred and said, “Well, all in God’s good time.” Her eyes, normally a faded blue, were burning. “Gary, there are things better learned by you only when they happen to you.” She handed him a sheet of paper with a list of herbs typed out and the instructions for brewing the tea.
The first thing he did on returning to Los Angeles was brew a batch for himself. He had been suffering from chronic bronchitis for years. Within two days of taking Essiac the bronchitis disappeared and had not returned. He then tracked down Rene’s closest friend Mary McPherson in Bracebridge, flew to Toronto, drove 170 kilometers through a blizzard, and spent eight hours in her home listening to the full history of Rene’s life. Mary was shocked when he recited the formula over dinner — “How did you get that?” — then confirmed its accuracy and eventually gave him the suitcases of original documents that no one had seen since Rene’s death. The reading of those papers took two weeks and established beyond reasonable doubt that Essiac had helped thousands of patients over sixty years. The decision to release the formula via videotape rather than in the book itself was Mary’s warning and Glum’s own first experience taking shape. Mary told him Rene’s deep fear in releasing the formula was that people would make mistakes and not know they had made them. She could not personally train everyone. If they took written instructions and got them wrong, the whole purpose was defeated. Even Sloan-Kettering had botched the preparation — freezing and thawing instead of boiling. Glum’s own first attempt required a phone call to his friend to walk him through the steps and reassure him he had not made silly mistakes. The videotape, released at $79.95, was his attempt to ensure that anyone brewing the tea would do it the way Rene did it, the same precise measurements, the same instructions at every step, so that the gift from an Ojibwa medicine man to an elderly English woman to a Canadian nurse to a Los Angeles chiropractor would not finally be lost in the kitchens of people who did not know they had got it wrong.
Analogy
Imagine a small-town baker who, by accident of inheritance from an old recipe passed hand to hand across generations, bakes a bread that cures scurvy. People who eat the bread recover. People who do not eat it, do not. The baker charges nothing. She bakes it in her own kitchen late at night, after days spent kneading and shaping loaves for whoever walks through her door with a doctor’s note confirming they have scurvy.
Word spreads. The town’s physicians divide. Some drive their patients to her door. Others petition the government to shut her down for practicing medicine without a license. The government sends two officials to arrest her. They sit in her kitchen, listen to her, examine her records, meet her patients, and leave convinced. They write letters of support instead. The medical establishment demands the recipe before they will consider whether the bread works. The baker says she will give them the recipe once they admit the bread works. The standoff holds for fifty years. During those fifty years the baker continues to bake. Patients continue to recover. Petitions reach fifty-five thousand signatures. A parliamentary committee comes within three votes of granting her the legal right to continue. A royal commission takes testimony from forty-nine sworn witnesses and dismisses the bread while asking in the final paragraph for the recipe. A famous Boston physician brings her to his clinic. His records show the bread works. Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s own mouse tests indicate regressions. The results are published nowhere, acted upon by no one. The baker dies at ninety. Her formula passes to a friend, then to another friend, then to a chiropractor in Los Angeles who releases it to the public.
The bread, in this analogy, is Essiac. The scurvy is cancer. The ingredients, as the elderly retired doctor said to Rene in his garden in 1923 while lifting a weed with his cane: “If people would use this weed there would be little or no cancer in the world.” The baker’s name was Rene Caisse, and the only remarkable thing about the whole story is that it is not an analogy at all.
The One-Minute Elevator Explanation
In 1922 a Canadian nurse named Rene Caisse met an elderly woman in a hospital whose breast cancer had been cured thirty years earlier by an Ojibwa medicine man using an herbal tea. The nurse wrote down the names of the herbs. For the next fifty-six years, she brewed that tea in her kitchen and treated thousands of cancer patients — most of them written off as terminally dying by their physicians. She charged nothing. She accepted only voluntary contributions. She required a written diagnosis from a licensed doctor before taking any patient. Hundreds of her patients, under sworn testimony before a Royal Commission in 1939, credited her with saving their lives. Petitions on her behalf reached 55,000 signatures. The Canadian parliament came within three votes of legalizing her practice. A Boston physician — John F. Kennedy’s own doctor — brought her to his clinic in 1959 and remained an outspoken advocate of her treatment until his own cancer was reversed by it in 1973. Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s own mouse tests in 1975 indicated regressions in sarcoma 180. The Canadian government, the National Cancer Institute, and the pharmaceutical corporations all demanded her formula before they would admit her remedy had merit. She refused to give it to them before they admitted the merit. The standoff held for her entire life. She died in 1978 at ninety. The author of this book obtained the formula from her closest friend and released it publicly in 1988. [Elevator dings]
Threads to follow for your own research: the Resperin Corporation’s shuttered 1977-82 Canadian trials and what became of their data; the 1978 federal class action suit in Detroit seeking legal importation of Essiac; the sworn testimony record of the 1939 Royal Cancer Commission hearings; Dr. Charles Brusch’s clinical files from the Brusch Medical Center in Cambridge; the 1977 Homemaker’s magazine investigation; the Washington Post 1981 series on 150 experimental cancer drugs derived from pesticides, herbicides, and dyes.
12-Point Summary
1. The origin was a chance hospital encounter. In 1922, Rene Caisse was a 33-year-old surgical nurse in Haileybury, Ontario, caring for an elderly woman whose scarred right breast turned out to be the record of a healing. The woman had been diagnosed in Toronto thirty years earlier with advanced breast cancer requiring immediate removal, refused the surgery, and been cured by an Ojibwa medicine man at a northern Ontario mining camp using an herbal tea. She was still cancer-free in her late seventies. Rene wrote down the names of the herbs. A year later, an elderly retired doctor she knew lifted a weed in his garden with his cane and said, “If people would use this weed there would be little or no cancer in the world” — naming the same plant the old woman had named. The convergence settled the matter in Rene’s mind. She would spend the next fifty-six years brewing the tea in her kitchen and treating cancer patients without charge.
2. The clinical practice was ethical, documented, and massive. Rene accepted only patients with a written cancer diagnosis from a licensed physician — most had already been through surgery, radium, or chemotherapy and been pronounced terminal or inoperable. She charged nothing, accepting only voluntary contributions. By the mid-1930s her clinic in the converted British Lion Hotel in Bracebridge was treating hundreds of patients a week. Ambulances double-parked. Boarding houses filled. Patients came from Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, the United States, Europe. The scene was compared to Lourdes. The record of her six decades of practice included tens of thousands of patients, hundreds of them documented in physician letters, pathological reports, and sworn testimony, with the same architecture repeating case after case: written off as dying, recovered under Essiac, years of continued life.
3. Physicians who looked carefully kept defecting to her side. In 1926, eight physicians signed a petition on her behalf. By 1937, forty doctors were part of a deputation to the Ontario government carrying 17,000 signatures. The pattern across six decades was that doctors sent to arrest her left persuaded, specialists who examined her patients confirmed the recoveries, and investigators who spent time with her — Dr. W.C. Arnold, Dr. J.A. McInnis, Dr. Emma Carson of Los Angeles, Dr. B.L. Guyatt of the University of Toronto, Dr. Charles Brusch of Cambridge Massachusetts, Dr. E. Bruce Hendrick of the University of Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children — stayed persuaded for the rest of their careers. In 1959, three Bracebridge doctors interviewed by magazine editors denied under direct questioning what the editors had documented proof of in their briefcases, and none would call Rene a charlatan, a fraud, after money, or psychotic — leaving no coherent dismissal available while simultaneously making clear it was “not a good thing for a doctor in Canada to discuss Nurse Caisse in any way.”
4. The political battle came within three votes of legalizing her practice. Grassroots petitions escalated across the 1930s: 2,700 signatures, then 14,000, then 17,000, then 55,000. In March 1938, the Ontario Private Bills Committee considered a bill that would have authorized Rene to treat cancer patients legally. The debate was fierce; patients in the gallery erupted; the Speaker threatened to clear the room. The bill was defeated by three votes. Within days the Kirby Bill passed, creating the Royal Cancer Commission and effectively criminalizing her practice. The Minister of Health then publicly denied the law was being enforced against her, launching a two-year cycle of closures, reopenings, denials, and reversals that kept the government’s hands officially clean while leaving the statute on the books.
5. The Royal Cancer Commission was a procedural exercise, not an investigation. In the public hearings held at the Royal York Hotel in Toronto in March 1939, 387 of Rene’s former patients traveled to testify. The Commission permitted only 49 to speak. The remaining 338 were sent home. The transcript of the 49 who did testify records recovery after recovery under oath. The December 1939 Interim Report dismissed the diagnoses as incorrect or credited the recoveries to prior radium treatments — maintaining that radium was still working even when long periods had elapsed and recurrences had appeared in between, but had nothing to do with it if the patient died. The report concluded Essiac had no merit, then in its final paragraph still asked for the formula. The contradiction revealed the purpose of the whole exercise.
6. The formula standoff held for fifty years because both sides had reasons. Rene would release the formula only after the institutions admitted Essiac had merit. The institutions would admit merit only after Rene released the formula. The Catch-22 held across every major player — the Canadian government, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the National Cancer Institute, Merck, Parke Davis, private corporations offering $100,000 contracts and $1 million donations. Rene’s fear was that the medical establishment would either charge exorbitant prices and bury Essiac beyond the reach of the poor, or discredit it and bury it entirely. She had watched the Canadian government and medical association try to crush her work for forty years. Her fears were calibrated to what she had seen with her own eyes.
7. The non-toxicity made the standoff indefensible on its own terms. Not even Rene’s worst enemies ever argued that patients were hurt by drinking the tea. Every investigator who examined Essiac — including the 1982 Canadian government officials who shut down the Resperin trials — agreed it was safe. By contrast, Fluorouracil, the widely used chemotherapy agent, carried a manufacturer’s warning stating that therapeutic benefit was unlikely without evidence of toxicity, and that death might result despite meticulous administration. The Washington Post reported in 1981 that over the previous decade 150 experimental cancer drugs — many derived from pesticides, herbicides, and industrial dyes — had been given to tens of thousands of patients, producing hundreds of deaths and a nightmarish list of adverse reactions including kidney failure, liver failure, bone marrow destruction, paralysis, coma, and in some cases tumor stimulation. “Almost all investigational cancer drugs are highly toxic,” an FDA official told the Post. Rene’s reaction was blunt: “Chemotherapy should be a criminal offense.”
8. Dr. Charles Brusch’s clinical records established the pattern independently. Brusch was no fringe practitioner. He administered the first polio vaccine in Cambridge in 1955, treated John F. Kennedy for Addison’s disease, and treated former House Speaker John McCormack. The Brusch Medical Center was one of the largest medical clinics in Massachusetts. Rene worked at his clinic for three months in 1959 under the supervision of his director of research Dr. Charles McClure, who documented recoveries in patients including Lena Burcell, John Cronin, Wilbur Dymond, and Russell McCassey. McClure’s conclusion was unambiguous: Essiac was efficacious. Brusch continued to use Essiac in his clinical practice for nearly thirty years, including on patients like Patrick McGrail — esophageal cancer, eleven-year survival — and Ross Nimchick, whose stage 3-4 lymphoma was reversed with 95% node reduction documented step by step in Brusch’s files. Brusch himself had cancer in 1973, treated himself with Essiac, and tested negative years later.
9. Memorial Sloan-Kettering’s own tests indicated regressions and were terminated over preparation errors. In 1959, Sloan-Kettering’s mice treated with Essiac showed what Dr. Philip Merker called a tendency of cancer cells to “amalgamate and localize.” On June 10, 1975, Dr. Chester Stock wrote to Rene: “Enclosed are test data in two experiments indicating some regressions in sarcoma 180 of mice treated with Essiac.” The next year the tests came to a halt. Rene received an explanation of how Sloan-Kettering had been preparing the injectable solution. They had ignored her instructions. They were not boiling the herb — they were freezing and thawing it. She wrote on their explanation in angry scrawl: “All wrong. Rene M. Caisse.” She terminated the agreement. In sworn affidavit in the 1978 Detroit class action suit, Stock later admitted Sloan-Kettering had been “never provided full information about the nature of Essiac” and had prepared the solution improperly from the dried material supplied.
10. The 1977 Homemaker’s investigation broke the story back open. A team of very skeptical reporters was assigned to investigate the eighty-nine-year-old nurse in Bracebridge. Over six months their skepticism dissolved. The executive vice president’s turning point came the day he realized that if told he had cancer, he would try everything — “but I’d go see Rene first.” The article caused an immediate sensation. Dr. David Fingard of the Resperin Corporation persuaded Rene to turn over the formula in late 1977 for $1 on signing and $250 a week for six months of testing. The tests dragged on for years. Rene complained publicly that she had been able to accomplish more by herself. In 1982 the Canadian government shut down the Resperin trials, calling the quality control flawed while admitting Essiac was safe. Patients already taking it would be allowed to continue, “purely on humanitarian grounds.”
11. Rene’s theory and warnings arrived decades before the mainstream caught up. She described cancer as a systemic condition carried through the bloodstream, not a localized one — surgery and radium attacking the symptom and not the cause. She wrote that Essiac strengthened the body’s natural defenses and acted as a blood purifier, enabling the normal cells to destroy abnormal ones. In her 1950s and 1960s essays she warned about agricultural pesticides, food preservatives, chemical processing of flours and oils, chemical aging of foods, and the dangers of atmospheric nuclear testing — the pesticide warnings predating Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring by years, the nuclear testing warnings predating President Kennedy’s atmospheric test ban treaty by five years. Her guidance to patients to avoid processed foods and chemical additives, read labels carefully, and support growers who did not use poisonous sprays would read as current health-food advice today. In the 1960s it was uncommon.
12. The formula is now public and the standoff is over. For sixty years the formal argument against investigating Essiac was that no scientific study could proceed without the formula. In 1985-86, Rene’s closest friend released the formula to Dr. Gary Glum, who had been introduced to Essiac by another of Rene’s cured patients and whose own chronic bronchitis cleared within days of taking the tea. Glum released the formula publicly in 1988 through a videotape rather than printing it in the book — Mary McPherson had warned him that Rene’s deep fear in releasing the formula was that people would make mistakes without knowing it, and Sloan-Kettering had already demonstrated that preparation errors could invalidate the entire exercise. The institutions that for six decades had refused to study Essiac on the grounds that they did not have the formula no longer have that argument available to them. What they do with the formula now, as always, is up to them.
The Golden Nugget
Rene Caisse offered to give her formula to any investigating commission, publicly, from the beginning of her working life — on one condition. The medical profession first had to admit that Essiac had merit, based on the results she had already demonstrated across hundreds of documented cases. Her offer was declined again and again across six decades by every institution asked. The Royal Cancer Commission in 1939 dismissed the remedy and then asked for the formula in the final paragraph of the same report. Memorial Sloan-Kettering demanded the formula before further study, received only the one herb Rene identified as responsible for regressions, saw regressions in two experiments in 1975, prepared the next batch wrong by freezing instead of boiling, and declared the results inconsistent. The pattern never varied. The institutions wanted the formula without conceding the record. Rene wanted the record acknowledged before parting with the formula.
What makes this the golden nugget is not the standoff itself but what it reveals about the real argument. If the medical establishment had wanted to investigate Essiac, the formula was never the obstacle. The herbs grew wild across Ontario. The ingredients were available from any major herbal distributor in America for under $50. Rene told the Canadian parliament in 1938 she would submit the formula to any investigating commission that would first admit her clinical results had merit. The commission would not admit the clinical results had merit. The gap between those two positions — not the chemistry of the herbs, not the mechanism of action, not the double-blind trials that were never run — is where Essiac died institutionally. It died not because anyone could show it did not work, but because the institutions whose job was to find out could not bring themselves to say, before the fact, that something a Canadian nurse without a medical degree had discovered in 1922 might deserve investigation on its own merits. The formula was never the point. The admission was the point. And the admission was never granted.
How to Explain It to a 6-Year-Old
A long time ago, a kind nurse named Rene was taking care of an old lady in a hospital. The old lady had a strange mark on her chest. Rene asked her what happened. The old lady said that many years before, doctors told her she was very sick and would die soon. But a man from an old village taught her to make a special tea from plants that grow in the forest. She drank the tea. She got better. She was still alive and feeling fine, all those years later.
Rene wrote down the names of the plants. She decided she would make the tea too, and give it to people who were very sick. She stayed up late at night in her kitchen making it. She never asked for money. If somebody brought her eggs or vegetables as a thank you, she said that was enough. For more than fifty years, people from all over came to her little town to ask for her tea. Many of them had been told by doctors that they were going to die. Many of them got better.
But something strange happened. The important doctors in the big cities got upset. They said Rene was not allowed to help sick people because she was not a doctor. They came to her door and told her to stop. Thousands and thousands of people wrote their names on a list asking the government to let Rene keep helping sick people. One time, the government almost said yes. But at the last minute they said no.
The important doctors kept asking Rene for the recipe for her tea. Rene said she would give them the recipe if they promised to tell everyone the tea really worked. The doctors said they would only say the tea worked if she gave them the recipe first. Nobody would move. The sick people kept coming to Rene’s door, and Rene kept making the tea. The old lady who first told her about the plants had been right. The plants did help people. But the important doctors never said so out loud.
Rene lived to be ninety years old. After she died, her best friend gave the recipe to a man who put it in a book, so now anybody who wants it can have it. The important doctors still have not said whether the tea works. But the plants are still growing in the forest, where they have been growing all along.
The Recipe
The book itself does not print the formula. Glum released it separately on videotape in 1988 at $79.95, with the stated reason that written instructions had led even Sloan-Kettering to prepare the herb wrong. The four-herb recipe below is the one Glum released and that circulated publicly through his own materials in the years that followed. Rene made this tea in her kitchen for fifty-six years. It is the exact arrangement of plants that eight physicians petitioned the Canadian government to legalise in 1926, that 55,000 Ontarians signed petitions to protect in 1938, and that Dr. Charles Brusch administered to his own body after his 1973 cancer diagnosis — continuing to take it successfully for the fifteen years between then and this book’s publication.
Dry herb mixture
6½ cups cut burdock root (Arctium lappa)
16 ounces (1 pound) powdered sheep sorrel herb including roots (Rumex acetosella)
Combine the dry herbs thoroughly. Store in a sealed dark glass jar away from light and heat.
Brewing
Bring 2 gallons (32 cups) of distilled or spring water to a rolling boil in a stainless steel pot with a tight-fitting lid. Never use aluminium.
Add 1 cup of the dry herb mixture to the boiling water. Stir. Replace the lid.
Continue boiling hard for 10 minutes with the lid on.
Turn off the heat. Scrape down the sides of the pot. Leave the pot covered and undisturbed for 10 to 12 hours (overnight) so the herbs settle to the bottom.
Reheat the brew to steaming but do not boil again. Strain through a fine mesh into sterilised dark glass bottles. Seal.
Store sealed bottles in the refrigerator. Shake lightly before each use.
Dose
One to two fluid ounces daily, taken on an empty stomach — either first thing in the morning or at bedtime, at least two hours after the last meal. Mix with an equal part of hot water. Sip slowly.
An opened bottle keeps roughly two weeks refrigerated. Discard any batch that develops mould or off-smell.
The herbs grow wild across Ontario, as Rene used to say, in quantities sufficient to supply the world. All four are available from any serious herbal supplier for a small fraction of the cost of a single chemotherapy infusion. What anyone does with that fact, as Rene told the Canadian parliament in 1938 and as Glum repeated in 1988, is a matter for each person to decide for themselves.
In Print
The Unbekoming library is available in paperback, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The shelf begins with the paradigm question underneath everything else — No Virus, the isolation problem, the collapse of virology’s foundational claims, and a disease-by-disease reappraisal — and moves through the suppressed compounds mainstream medicine set aside: The DMSO Book, Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy, The Iodine Book, and The Hydrogen Peroxide Book. Two more recover what’s still on the kitchen shelf: Baking Soda and The Castor Oil Book. Two more recover the minerals modern soil, water, and processing quietly stripped from the diet: The Magnesium Handbook and The Boron Book. Sitting alongside these is No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews — the case against germ theory itself, catalogued through 258 failed contagion experiments.
The critique books cover what medicine, dentistry, psychiatry, and veterinary practice have become. The Unvaccinated treats the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit treats cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth as the dietary problem they are. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM and the specific damage of every major psychiatric drug class. The Vitamin K Injection covers what happens in the first hours of a newborn’s life.
The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the skeptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
Canada’s Bill C-22, has passed the Canadian House of Commons and is currently being debated in the Canadian Senate, and Civil Liberties Organizations are raising the alarm bells over the unprecedented surveillance powers the bill gives to the Canadian security state.
The bill, as Kate Robertson, senior research associate at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, noted, “would empower the government to require surveillance capabilities be built into any communications technology in Canada that could be accessed by law enforcement, and to force the stockpiling of all Canadians’ sensitive metadata,” adding that “The law would apply to everything from smartphones to smartwatches, banking to health apps, video game platforms, and public WiFi or CCTV networks.”
The bill similarly “includes mandating that companies store user data for at least a year – even if the data isn’t something they would otherwise be keeping on hand for the purposes of their business”, “including location and transmission data”.
President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, John Carpay, noted that the bill not only forces these companies to gather mass data on Canadian civilians, but lowers the standard of proof needed to obtain them, noting that the bill “lowers the threshold for obtaining judicial approval for law enforcement to demand users’ subscriber information (name, address, email, IP address, account details, etc.) from ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ to ‘reasonable grounds to suspect.’”
The bill may even give the Canadian government the ability to turn on Microphones and Cameras in order to surveil citizens.
Leah West, an expert in national security law based at Carleton University, told a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that “C-22 would order companies to ‘provide the capabilities to turn on a remote microphone,’” adding that “So you could potentially have an order that would require that capability, and as long as it didn’t create a system vulnerability, then yes it could be implemented”.
Unsurprisingly, the bill has raised major alarm bells with Canadian civil liberties organizations.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Organization called the bill “the broadest expansion of government surveillance powers in recent Canadian history” and Matt Hatfield, Executive Director at OpenMedia, called it “the most invasive surveillance regime of any comparable democracy”.
Some of the alarm bells rung by the Canadian Civil Liberties Organization included the possibilities that the bill would:
– Pave the way for expanded information-sharing with the United States and numerous other governments including those with a history of abuse. Expansion of information-sharing with foreign governments in the absence of effective safeguards is particularly reckless at a time when cross-border persecution of diaspora communities—including through abuse of cross-border police cooperation tools—is on the rise.
– Give the government the power to force any electronic mechanism to build new surveillance tools and embed these at the core of their service, potentially transforming anything with a digital component into spyware. The mandated surveillance capability need not have anything to do with the actual functionality of the service in question. Backdoors like these also cannot be effectively limited to law enforcement access—Cybercriminals and foreign adversaries have repeatedly and successfully targeted the mass surveillance capabilities created by similar regimes. Overall, the proposal creates untenable privacy and cybersecurity risks.
– Lower the threshold for sensitive subscriber data, allowing government agencies to cast a wide net when conducting investigations; and
– the government the power to force any digital entity to keep highly sensitive information on every single person in Canada or abroad for up to one year. Information could include every single person’s location at any time over the course of the year, a complete record of everyone you interacted with online, and more. Bill C-22 includes no mechanism to place limits on who can access these data troves or for what purpose, making it potentially fair game for any and all criminal and civil investigations as well as for commercial exploitation by the private company being compelled to retain the data.
In an open letter over 25 leading Canadian civil society groups called the bill an “unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous surveillance architecture that could impact every digital tool people in Canada depend on every day”,“the most expansive invasion of Canadian privacy rights in modern history” and “fundamentally a mass surveillance capabilities regime”.
It warned that under part 2 of the bill “the government could force the creation and installation of privacy-compromising surveillance tools and backdoors in an enormous and ill-defined set of ‘electronic service providers’, including telecom providers, social media and cloud service providers, AI tools, and any ‘smart’ device” adding that “The law could even be used to force Canadian companies to build backdoors into their products before they export them abroad” and that “The result creates an untenable threat to privacy and cybersecurity” even noting that it “far exceeds powers available to police and security agencies in the United States.”
It also noted that, “Part 2 of Bill C-22 will now also empower the government to require any digital service provider to record and retain detailed metadata on every single person in Canada or abroad, damaging the privacy of millions who are not suspected of committing any crime or posing any security threat,” adding that “companies will be forced to develop the capacity to track information that was never before available to them and is not necessary for their business purposes, then to collect and retain that information for up to one year.”
50 Canadians out of 1,400 who came forward finally had their stories heard.
This final report features firsthand accounts of life-altering injuries and deaths following COVID-19 vaccination, paralysis, neurological damage, cardiac events, and families left without answers.
In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covered the hearings after mainstream outlets stayed away.
MP Dean Allison explains why he launched the inquiry: too many people were suffering in silence.
The injured describe being dismissed by the medical system, denied support through Canada’s vaccine injury program, and treated as if their experiences didn’t count.
Watch the testimonies and share them!
These stories were never supposed to stay hidden so please:
Or you can send an e-transfer to dan@pressfortruth.ca
If you’re old fashioned like we are and prefer to keep it old school, we also accept cash, cheques (made out to Dan Dicks), equipment and words of encouragement! You can send us those things here: Dan Dicks P.O. Box 1521 Squamish BC V8B 0B1
Europe is getting tougher on Israel in rhetoric and sanctions, but its latest measures may be designed to create political distance from Israel without creating enough economic pain to make Israel change course in the West Bank or anywhere in Palestinian territories.
On September 8, Britain, France, Canada and a group of other European governments announced new measures against Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Twelve countries—Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom—said they would introduce national restrictions, support European restrictions or consider further measures against trade in goods from settlements considered illegal under international law. Britain, France and Canada said they would move toward national bans.
The language accompanying the measures is strikingly forceful. The governments say that Israeli actions in the West Bank are undermining the possibility of a two-state solution and demand that Israel halt settlement expansion, stop extending civilian administrative powers and ensure accountability for settler violence. They specifically singled out the planned E1 settlement project, which they regard as a threat to the territorial viability of a future Palestinian state.
Yet the economic arithmetic behind the sanctions tells a very different story. Britain offers the clearest example. UK-Israel trade was worth approximately £6 billion in 2025. By contrast, the British government estimates that trade between the UK and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was only around £38 million in the same year. That is roughly 0.6 percent of the value of UK-Israel trade.
The £38 million figure is not equivalent to the value of settlement exports. Because Israel and the Palestinian territories operate within an interconnected customs system, precise figures for trade originating specifically in settlements are difficult to establish. But that is precisely the point. Even the broader figure for UK trade with the Occupied Palestinian Territories is tiny compared with the overall UK-Israel commercial relationship. The British government is therefore not threatening the economic relationship that matters most to Israel. It is targeting a small and geographically defined segment of economic activity associated with the occupation while leaving the overwhelming bulk of bilateral trade untouched.
There is, of course, a legitimate argument for banning settlement goods regardless of their economic impact. A government may reasonably conclude that it should not facilitate or normalize economic activity in territory it regards as illegally occupied. The measures also create a legal and commercial distinction between Israel within its internationally recognized borders and settlements in occupied territory. That distinction may prove important over time. But that is different from claiming that the sanctions constitute serious economic pressure on Israel. They do not.
Sanctioning the Settlement, Not the State
This reveals a deeper contradiction in Europe’s emerging policy. The governments imposing these measures are not primarily confronting an autonomous settler economy operating outside the Israeli state. They are responding to Israeli government policy. Their own statement makes that explicit: “The Government of Israel’s actions in the West Bank” are, they argue, undermining the two-state solution. Yet the principal economic response is directed at goods produced in settlements, not the Israel state and government themselves. Thus, the policy totally ignores the fact that the settlement enterprise is consequently embedded in the institutions and policies of the Israeli state. Sanctioning settlement products therefore addresses one manifestation of the policy while leaving the broader economic relationship with the state largely intact.
Britain’s approach illustrates this particularly well. London has sought to distinguish between economic relations with Israel and activities connected to settlements. The House of Commons Library notes that Britain has long maintained that settlement goods should not receive the same preferential treatment as goods produced within Israel’s internationally recognized territory. Before the latest announcement, however, the government had resisted a comprehensive ban, partly because of the difficulty of distinguishing the interconnected Israeli and Palestinian economies. The new measures are therefore a significant political escalation, but not a fundamental economic rupture with Israel itself.
That distinction is crucial. If the objective were simply to demonstrate opposition to settlement expansion, the measures make sense. If the objective is to force the Israeli government to abandon or substantially reverse its West Bank policy, they are much less convincing. Serious coercive sanctions would have to affect actors whose economic interests can influence government policy. They might target major financial institutions, companies involved in settlement infrastructure, state-linked enterprises, investment flows or preferential trade arrangements. But none of that is happening.
The Political Value of Doing Something
For European governments, there is considerable political value in demonstrating that they are no longer prepared to treat Israeli settlement expansion as business as usual. Public opinion has shifted sharply in many European countries, and governments face growing pressure to respond to the humanitarian and political consequences of Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank. But imposing serious economic pressure on Israel would be a very different undertaking.
Israel is a major European security and trading partner. Europe also has interests in intelligence cooperation, technology, defence, regional security and diplomatic coordination. A comprehensive economic sanctions regime would therefore impose costs not only on Israel but on European governments and businesses themselves.
Settlement sanctions offer a politically convenient middle ground. They allow European governments to say that they are imposing consequences on Israel’s policies while preserving most of their economic relationship with Israel. That makes the sanctions politically useful even if their coercive capacity remains limited. The distinction can be put simply: they create symbolic distance without creating leverage.
The danger for Europe is that symbolic sanctions eventually become an end in themselves: a way for governments to demonstrate moral distance while the underlying policy they condemn continues to deepen. If settlement expansion continues despite successive rounds of European restrictions, the credibility of European coercive diplomacy will gradually erode.
The next phase will therefore be decisive. Europe can continue refining a system of differentiation between Israel and the occupied territories, gradually increasing the economic costs of the settlement enterprise. Or it can conclude that protecting a future Palestinian state requires confronting the broader Israeli state policy that makes settlement expansion possible. The difference between those two approaches is not semantic. It is the difference between signaling disapproval and changing incentives. Europe has now demonstrated that it can punish the settlement enterprise. Whether it is willing to impose enough costs to change the policy behind it remains an open question. If history is any guide, it is unlikely to openly confront the state of Israel to the extent where a real economic rupture looks possible and feasible.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
Excess mortality researcher Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., on Tuesday told Canadian lawmakers that national mortality statistics show “screaming safety signals” following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines — including increases in deaths among infants and children and increases in turbo cancers.
Testifying at Canada’s Allison Inquiry, Rancourt also argued that COVID-19-era government interventions — including lockdowns, isolating the elderly, closing businesses and withdrawing government support programs — also drove excess mortality during the pandemic.
Rancourt based his arguments on his analysis of official mortality data from Statistics Canada and in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). He described how COVID-19 vaccines directly harmed individuals, and how specific pandemic policies caused broader societal harm.
His presentation came on the opening day of the Allison Inquiry, a four-day hearing chaired by Canadian Member of Parliament Dean Allison. The inquiry collected testimony from 50 Canadians injured by COVID-19 vaccines, along with testimony from physicians, scientists and other witnesses.
4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. alone
Infant mortality had been declining in the U.S. before the pandemic. That trend reversed during the pandemic, according to Rancourt’s data — but not until 2022, nine months after COVID-19 vaccination was recommended for pregnant women.
Rancourt estimated the change represented approximately 4,000 excess infant deaths in the U.S. from 2022 to 2024.
He presented a similar case for Canada, although the raw numbers were much lower due to the smaller population. After Canada issued its vaccine guidance for pregnant women on May 28, 2021, he said mortality rose among infants, with a marked increase nine months after the recommendations.
He estimated there were 200 excess infant deaths in Canada during that time, with 10 excess pregnancy-related deaths.
Data show 2,000+ excess deaths among 1- to 4-year-olds in U.S.
Rancourt identified more than 2,000 excess deaths among children ages 1-4 in the U.S. between 2021 and 2024.
He attributed an initial increase in 2021 partly to the abrupt withdrawal of federal financial assistance in some states.
But Rancourt said the largest increase coincided with the June 17, 2022, authorization of COVID-19 vaccines for young children. Excess deaths peaked precisely with the vaccine rollout.
Canadian mortality data showed a similar age-specific pattern. Rancourt shared mortality trends for Canadian children ages 1-4, 5-9 and 10-14, showing each group experienced a pronounced increase during the year COVID-19 vaccines became available for that particular age group.
The spikes in excess mortality were “very sudden,” he said. The increases did not occur during the first two years of the pandemic, he emphasized.
“As soon as you vaccinated these age groups and not before, not when there was COVID, not in the first two years of the pandemic. But when you started vaccinating them, that is the signature that you see in the mortality [data],” Rancourt said. “It’s absolutely stunning.”
He estimated 410 excess deaths among Canadian children ages 1-14.
‘Turbo cancers’ and excess cancer deaths
Rancourt said that rapidly progressing cancers, also called “turbo cancers,” are not a new phenomenon. Scientific literature on “hyperprogressive disease,” or HPD, has reported such cancers in some patients undergoing immunotherapy since 2015, when the new treatments became available.
However, excess mortality data now show signals of an unusually aggressive increase in cancer mortality following the vaccine rollouts, according to Rancourt.
Rancourt identified more than 4,000 excess cancer deaths among Americans ages 5-44 during the study period. An estimated 960 of those were among young people ages 5-24. He highlighted a sharp increase in deaths from cancers of the long bones and limbs.
Rancourt called the increase “definitely a safety signal.”
He also estimated that 240 excess deaths among Americans ages 25-44 involved multiple primary cancers — separate primary tumors occurring in different organs rather than a single cancer metastasizing to other parts of the body.
Approximately 1,500 excess deaths due to these cancers occurred in people 75 and older. He said his research group has observed similar signals in Canada, but researchers are still analyzing those data.
It’s not just the vaccines — pandemic policies also linked to excess deaths
The second half of Rancourt’s presentation focused on an argument his research group has built over several years of excess mortality analysis — that government policy responses to COVID-19 caused excess mortality.
For example, his research team examined more than 80 province-specific socioeconomic variables in Canada to determine which were linked to excess mortality.
They found that excess mortality correlated strongly with GDP per capita. “The more wealth generation you have in the province, the more excess deaths you have,” he said.
He surmised that when the economy shut down in provinces with vibrant economies, it had devastating effects on workers and their families.
Policies designed to protect elderly contributed to their deaths
Rancourt compared weekly excess mortality with an Oxford University index measuring the intensity of measures intended to protect elderly people, including isolation and lockdown policies.
Increases in the severity of those measures corresponded with large mortality peaks, Rancourt said. Those peaks were then followed by periods of unusually low mortality.
“And that’s because you’ve killed so many people in that first peak that there’s less people of that age to die in the weeks that follow,” he said. “That’s called the dry tinder effect.”
He interpreted the pattern as evidence that measures intended to protect elderly Canadians instead contributed to their deaths.
During questioning after his presentation, Rancourt was asked whether that meant elderly people should not have been isolated and locked down.
“Absolutely,” he responded.
Rancourt said social isolation and severe stress can have profound physiological effects, particularly among vulnerable populations.
“If you had not tried to save the elderly by isolating them and locking them in” the mortality outcome would have been different, he said.
“You have to know that isolation kills,” he said. “This is unambiguous.”
Cutting financial support also correlated with deaths
Rancourt said another mortality signal appeared when governments withdrew pandemic-era financial assistance.
Canada and the U.S. initially provided enormous financial support to workers and families after governments shut down large portions of the economy.
Those programs were so effective that poverty actually declined in Canada during 2020 and 2021, when more than $1 trillion was given out, Rancourt said.
But mortality increased following major reductions in financial assistance, according to the data he presented.
“It’s worse if you give money, if you give support and you cut it, it’s worse than if you’d never given it,” Rancourt said.
No evidence of viral pandemic, Rancourt argued
Rancourt said his team’s all-cause mortality research across North America and Europe failed to show the mortality pattern that would be expected if a spreading respiratory virus were the primary cause of excess mortality.
Rancourt described the spread in mortality as “geostatic,” rather than “geotemporal” — meaning mortality sometimes appeared to peak in one geographic location without spreading into neighboring regions.
As an example, he cited the dramatic differences between the area around Milan in northern Italy, which experienced massive early mortality spikes, and Rome, which had no comparable event.
Both cities had similar demographics and similar types of exposure — through international airports and other types of transportation networks — but very different outcomes.
If there had been a viral disease, they should have seen a similar type of spread and similar mortality rates.
“Identical systems, identical types of societies, just as many poor, high-density urban areas,” he said.
Rancourt said the geographic patterns were “inconsistent with the accepted theory of how a virus spreads” through person-to-person respiratory transmission.
‘Assaults’ drove excess mortality, ‘not a virus’
Rancourt ended his presentation by telling the members of the inquiry that his research led him to conclude that government policies and toxic vaccines were to blame for excess deaths in the COVID-19 period.
He said:
“History will record that the COVID period was, in effect, a massive and unnecessary multifaceted assault against people, exploiting fear and causing harm, injury and death, especially in the most vulnerable. All governments under U.S. hegemony and media influence cooperated or imitated. Canada was no exception.
“The vaccines are toxic and caused many deaths and injuries in plain sight of robust national statistics.”
He listed economic shutdowns, fear, mandates, isolation, medical interventions and vaccination among the “assaults” that he believes, based on the data he analyzed, caused excess mortality.
Rancourt singled out COVID-19 vaccination as the most devastating. Unlike other pandemic measures, it involved administering a pharmaceutical product directly to large numbers of healthy as well as vulnerable people, including elderly people, pregnant women and children.
Rancourt conceded that excess mortality data cannot, on their own, conclusively prove what caused individual deaths. He argued instead that uncertainty about causation should not become a reason to ignore unusual population-level signals.
“Science can never prove causality,” Rancourt said. But institutional capture can “always minimize and invalidate screaming safety signals and personal hardship.”
The patterns he presented should have triggered investigation and changes in government policy, he said.
“These are the signals I showed you today,” Rancourt said. They “needed to be acknowledged right away and used to change government and medical establishment behavior.”
Western spy agencies originally cultivated and trained Ukrainian hacker groups “to counter Russia”, but they all quickly spun out of control, mutating into fraud networks, the Aydınlık outlet reports.
As of 2026, an estimated 1,000 call centers operate in Ukraine, employing roughly 60,000 people and targeting citizens of at least 29 countries through a range of schemes—including fake investment pitches, romance-baiting, and impersonation of banks or government agencies.
Various criminal ploys are used, including threats and blackmail, and different schemes are employed for different countries — for example, fake official documents in Germany, bogus cryptocurrencies in France, “safe bank accounts” in Greece and “tax authorities” in Canada and the US.
The network’s total monthly revenue is estimated at roughly $1 billion, with a single call center alone pulling in $8 million from Germany and approximately $1 million from the Baltic states, the outlet adds.
The documentary Silencing Detective Grus, produced by the Grus Justice Project with Matador Films, concerns Detective Helen Grus of the Ottawa Police Service. Her case became the longest and most costly police disciplinary proceeding in Canadian history. The question at its center was whether a police officer is permitted to investigate a possible link between the COVID-19 injections and a cluster of infant deaths. The tribunal’s answer, delivered March 25, 2025, was no. This essay engages material that establishment institutions frame in their own vocabulary. Product designations, agency names, and documented adverse events appear in the language in which they were made and recorded, since those are the terms of the record. The analysis operates from a different register: injection harm, institutional capture, and the responsibility of agencies that knew and pushed the shots regardless. The occasion is the release of the film, and the reason it matters now.
The Keystroke
January 13, 2022. Detective Helen Grus, in her nineteenth year with the Ottawa Police Service, opens the Records Management System from her desk in the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Section.¹ A colleague in her unit has mentioned at the water cooler that they have seen a doubling to tripling of sudden infant deaths over the previous year. Ottawa normally sees two or three a year. “I took it on myself,” Grus recalls, “on January the 13th, 2022, to look into the database to see if it was true.”²
It was.
She pulls one case that had been closed as non-suspicious. The investigator had never reviewed the autopsy results. The SUDI questionnaire, the multi-page document in which parents are asked what the child ate that day, what medications the household received, what vaccinations the child had, was not in the file. Grus follows up over the following days to see whether the autopsy report will appear. It never does.
The detective who signed off on that closure was, and is, the sister-in-law of the prosecutor who would lead the case against Grus at her disciplinary tribunal.³
That is the shape of the story. What follows is what happens to a Canadian police officer who runs a database query her employer did not expect her to run.
What She Found
The pattern was real. In one case, an infant had died in the parents’ arms. “To me, that is suspicious,” Grus says. “In twenty years of policing, I had never seen that happen.”⁴ Another death involved an enlarged heart, a presentation she describes as abnormal for an infant fatality.
The field around the Ottawa file was already noisy. Eighty-six stillbirths in the Waterloo region between January and July of that year, against a normal rate of roughly one every two months.⁵ A physician who appears in the film describes a patient who had received her second injection at eleven weeks of pregnancy. Two months later, at a routine October checkup, there was no fetal heart rate. Her three prior pregnancies had all been healthy.⁶
A bereaved mother in the film describes her own loss. She was thirty-two weeks pregnant. She woke feeling something wrong, went to the hospital, was told everything was fine, and was sent home. The next morning there was no heartbeat. Two prior pregnancies had been healthy and full-term. “Because then you look at her, and there’s nothing wrong with her. Like, nothing. She was a perfect little baby. She was big, and she was healthy.”⁷ She describes what happens next: the C-section for a baby who has already died, everything she had bought becoming “a memory that you put away, stick in a box,” the suggestion of antidepressants as a solution. “We will really never know. But that is the only thing in my life that was different, was putting the COVID vaccination in my body.”⁸
Grus had institutional context she could not have known she had. Pfizer’s own February 2021 adverse event review had already identified placental changes, increased fetal deaths, and one child born with severe dyspnea, or shortness of breath, all attributed by the manufacturer’s own reviewers to the injection itself.⁹ In the same month, the Canadian Medical Protective Society was writing to the federal Deputy Minister of Health asking about liability protection for doctors administering the shots.¹⁰ The public messaging was, and would remain for years, “safe and effective.”
None of that was in her mind when she opened the database. She was checking a colleague’s observation, the way an investigator checks any tip. What she saw when she looked was enough to keep looking.
Who She Was
Helen Grus is the third of ten children born to Czechoslovak immigrants who left the communist bloc in the 1960s and met in Canada.¹¹ Her father worked three full-time jobs and eventually bought a motel in St. Pete Beach, Florida. The family bounced between motels in the United States before returning to Canada and settling in Arthur, Ontario. Ten children in a small Ontario town in a Czech immigrant family formed a polka band, because that was what the father wanted.
Grus joined the Ottawa Police Service on August 14, 2003. She spent her early years on patrol, worked as a breath technician and a coach officer, and moved to West District Investigations in 2007.¹² She describes her work as puzzle-solving. “I love investigating. It’s like putting pieces of a puzzle together every day. So I love finding the truth.”¹³ In one Ontario Police Association nomination cycle, she was the most-nominated officer for the province’s Top Cop award. She did not receive a mention.¹⁴
She is not an activist. She is a career investigator from an immigrant family who liked her job and was good at it. When Canadian institutions moved to punish someone for asking about the deaths of infants, that is who they moved against.
The Suppression Begins
The database was not Grus’s only move. She had also been briefing her command about what her unit was seeing. In late 2021 and early 2022, she twice briefed Chief Peter Sloly and other senior Ottawa Police officers on the cluster of infant deaths, Pfizer’s exclusion of pregnant women from its trials, the advisories on myocarditis in children, and her concern that harms were going unreported. Command took no action. In early February 2022, she was suspended.¹⁵
Within days of her suspension, Ottawa Police secretly wiretapped Grus and her family under the “urgent emergency” provisions of the Criminal Code, provisions written for abductions, hostage situations, and terrorism. The wiretap produced no evidence.¹⁶
The first charge was insubordination, on the theory that Grus should not have accessed the RMS at all. That charge collapsed once she was permitted to explain what she had been doing. It was replaced, in the same interview, with discreditable conduct.¹⁷
The stated rationale for the new charge was that the CBC had run a story on her database query, framing it as an unauthorized access for personal reasons. The story was false. Someone inside the Ottawa Police Service had leaked to the CBC. Grus asked for an investigation into the leak. Her request was declined. She was now to be held responsible for the reputational damage caused by a leak she did not authorize, about an investigation she had been running lawfully.¹⁸
The rumors introduced against her in the disciplinary process ranged from the strange to the trivial. That she believed the mRNA injections contained tracking nanobots. That she had lied to local hockey arenas to get her children ice time. Neither had any relationship to the substance of her investigation. Both traveled through her file.¹⁹
She was offered a plea. Thirteen bullet points, a small penalty. When she read the sheet, her badge number was wrong and eight of the thirteen bullets were inaccurate or misleading. “I’m not going to sign off on a document that is not accurate,” she said.²⁰ She took the matter to a hearing.
From March 2022, personnel from the Public Health Agency of Canada monitored the Grus file, communicated with Ottawa Police officials, and shaped the investigation. Two of those PHAC personnel were the mother and grandmother of one of the nine deceased infants Grus had been investigating. The grandmother was a senior PHAC scientific manager associated with the National Advisory Committee on Immunization, whose recommendations underwrote Canada’s mandatory-injection policy for employment and travel and its recommendation that pregnant and breastfeeding women receive the shots. The federal officials whose work had shaped the policy Grus was investigating were among those shaping the prosecution of the officer investigating it.²¹
The Tribunal Machinery
What followed became the longest and most costly police disciplinary proceeding in Canadian history. The Ottawa Police Service retained outside counsel to prosecute the matter, the firm of Linda Bordeleau, wife of the retired Ottawa Chief of Police Charles Bordeleau. Cost estimates to the Ottawa taxpayer run into the seven figures.²²
The hearing officer was retired Superintendent Christopher Renwick. Under the applicable rules, hearing officers who are not trained lawyers may seek independent legal advice for the proceeding. Renwick declined it and relied instead, when confused, on the arguments of the prosecution.²³
The prosecution’s conduct in the room is on the record. Constant objections before defense counsel could complete a sentence. Objections during defense closing submissions, which in ordinary legal practice are sacrosanct. During one exchange the prosecutor said “objection,” slammed her laptop shut, and walked out of the hearing.²⁴ In one line of questioning she compared Grus’s conduct to that of Colonel Russell Williams, the Canadian Forces officer convicted of murder and sexual assault.²⁵ To compare a detective’s database query about infant deaths to a serial rapist and murderer requires a particular quality of malice.
The expert witnesses Grus had prepared to call, whose function was to demonstrate that the medical basis for her investigation was sound, were not permitted to testify. Five witnesses in total, including three medical doctors, were barred.²⁶ The affidavit her defense filed contained federal correspondence showing that Canadian public health officials knew of injection-associated harm to pregnant women and infants and continued to promote the shots as safe. When Grus attempted, during her own testimony, to explain what the Pfizer trial records showed about infant outcomes, the hearing officer lurched forward and ordered her to stop.²⁷
Shortly before her scheduled testimony, Grus received an email from Inspector Hugh O’Toole, head of the Ottawa Police Professional Standards unit, ordering her not to use records in her affidavit that had already been filed and disclosed. Her defense counsel, Bath-Sheba van den Berg, described the email in one word. Intimidation.²⁸ No charges were laid against O’Toole. He resigned. During the same period, a different Ottawa officer facing criminal charges for sexual assault and forcible confinement was actively defended by his police association, while Grus, facing discipline for doing her job, was refused association support.²⁹
Of the witnesses who testified against Grus, all but one received promotions during or after the hearing.³⁰ Steve Bell, the acting chief during the initial charging period and the officer who designated Renwick as hearing officer, is now the Chief Operating Officer of the Ottawa Police Service.³¹
The evidence Renwick did allow into the record showed that three of the nine infants Grus had been investigating died from causes officially listed as known adverse effects of the COVID-19 injections.³² He convicted her anyway.
Grus’s own frame did not move. “For me,” she says, “the victims in this are those families that lost the babies.”³³
The Ruling
On March 25, 2025, Superintendent Renwick found Detective Grus guilty of discreditable conduct.³⁴
His written decision holds two propositions that Canadians should understand plainly.
The first is that a police officer facing a misconduct charge has, in effect, no defenses available. It does not matter whether the underlying investigation was warranted, whether the officer’s suspicion was reasonable, or whether what the officer found was later confirmed by evidence. What matters, per the ruling, is whether the officer crossed an administrative line. Substance is legally irrelevant.³⁵
The second is that a police officer cannot conduct an investigation into government officials without prior authorization. The Police Services Act, which had long granted officers the discretion to open an investigation on their own initiative, was amended in this period to require supervisor permission. The Grus ruling made explicit what the amendment had permitted implicitly. In Ontario, and by clear signal to every other Canadian jurisdiction, police may no longer look at the state without first asking the state.³⁶
Take those two propositions together and what you have is a specific legal architecture. A single office, the office of the chief of police, controls every institutional lever in the process by which an officer can be disciplined for asking about the state. The chief authorizes the charge and designates the hearing officer. The prosecuting counsel is retained on his authority. The officers who testify against her serve under his command. There is no independent institution anywhere in the process. This is not the failure of a system built to hold police accountable. It is the system working exactly as its recent redesign intended. The message to every constable in Ontario is precise.
What the Film Is For
A scholar interviewed in the opening minutes of the documentary makes a point about films of this kind that is easy to miss. He is asked whether the film should aim to open the minds of people who still believe the official narrative, to persuade the unpersuaded. His answer is that this is not what films do. Books and films of this kind, he says, do not convert. They consolidate the people who have already understood that something is wrong. They give shape to the sense that those people were right to be concerned. They create cohesion and rationality among those who are already drawn to being critical.³⁷
That framing is the essay’s answer to a question a promotional piece has to address. If the film does not convert, what is the point of watching it, sharing it, screening it?
The point is that in a country where a career detective can be destroyed for opening a database, where a ruling now strips an entire profession of the right to investigate its own government, the people who suspect that the official messaging on injection safety was wrong need a common reference. They need to see what a real Canadian tribunal looks like when its purpose is signaling rather than adjudication. They need to hear the parents of babies who died speak for themselves. The film shows them the career professional from an immigrant family who queried the database that day, and what happened to her when she did.
The film is that common reference. It is calmly made. Its subject describes her career and her investigation in her own words. Her lawyers walk through the tribunal they watched. Parents describe what they lost. A scholar addresses how compliance is maintained in institutions under pressure. The film neither editorializes over its own material nor pleads with the viewer. It records what happened, and the record is severe enough that it does not need help.
The Firing Squad and What to Do
The film closes on a story from the scholar’s childhood. He watched a World War Two film at the public library. In it, the German army lines a group of civilians against a wall. Every German soldier except one raises his rifle. The officer walks over and speaks with the soldier who did not. After a moment, the soldier lowers his rifle, walks to the wall, and joins the civilians. The command is given. Everyone against the wall is killed.
Most viewers think the point of that story is the soldier who chose principle. It is not. The significance of the story is that every other soldier raised his rifle.³⁸
Detective Helen Grus is the soldier who did not raise the rifle. The story the film tells is what the Canadian institutional structure did to her for it, and what that reveals about the readiness of every other soldier in the formation.
If any of this has landed for you, the film is where the record lives. Watch it. Twenty-four-hour rental at grusjusticeproject.org for twenty Canadian dollars.³⁹ That is the cost of seeing what happened to a career detective who queried a database about a cluster of infant deaths, told in her own words, in the voices of her lawyers, and in the voices of parents whose children died.
Once you have watched, send the link to people you know who have been asking their own questions. The Grus Justice Project offers a Host a Screening pathway for community groups who want to bring people together in a room. Contributions to the ongoing legal work go through the project’s donation page.⁴⁰ The costs of defending the case remain real: the March 2025 conviction stands, and sentencing continues into 2026.⁴¹
Which of those pathways is right for you is your decision. Canadian police in Ontario may no longer investigate the state without the state’s permission. Where you fit in what comes next is a question the film will not answer for you.
The ruling is not the end of the story. It is the precedent. Somewhere in Ontario a detective is about to notice something in a database, and the ruling was designed to determine what she does next. The film exists so that when she weighs the cost of asking, she knows the name of at least one person who paid it, and knows the kind of person that officer was before she asked.
The keystroke was on January 13, 2022. The verdict was on March 25, 2025. What comes between them is on record, and the record is on the screen.
How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old
Imagine a teacher who notices that more children than usual are getting hurt on the playground. Way more. Two or three times as many. That is her job to notice, because she is one of the grown-ups who watches out for the kids.
She looks a bit closer. She finds that the other teachers, the ones who were supposed to check what was going on when a child got hurt, had not filled in the forms properly. Some of them had not even asked the parents what happened. She wants to know why.
Before she does anything else, she goes to the principal and tells him. She tells him twice. She says: something is happening on the playground, and I think it might have something to do with the new shots that all the children have been given this year. She says: some of these injuries look like the ones that were already known to happen after the shots. The principal does not tell her she is wrong. He just does not do anything about it.
So she keeps asking, because that is what a good teacher does.
Then things get strange. Grown-ups start showing up in her file who should not be there at all. Some of them work in the office that decided all the children should get the shots in the first place. One of them is the grandmother of one of the children who died. She helps write the rules about the shots.
So the principal punishes the teacher. First he makes up a small reason. When the small reason falls apart, he makes up a bigger one. He sends people to sit outside her house and listen to her phone calls, as if she were a dangerous person. She was not. They found nothing.
Then he does something bigger still. He makes a new rule. From now on, no teacher in the whole school is allowed to ask questions about the playground without first asking his permission. Not one teacher. Not one question.
The film is about the teacher.
It is also about what happens to a school when the principal makes rules like that. And it is about the teachers who come after her, who will one day notice that more children are getting hurt, and will have to decide whether to say something.
References
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Detective Grus is identified as a veteran investigator in the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit.
Grus Justice Project. Silencing Detective Grus. Directed by Todd Harris. Produced with Matador Films. 2026. Available at grusjusticeproject.org. Detective Grus’s direct account of the January 13, 2022 database query.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s testimony regarding the closed case and the familial relationship of the investigating detective to the prosecutor who led the disciplinary case against her.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s testimony regarding the case in which an infant died in the parents’ arms.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen statement regarding Waterloo region stillbirth figures. The figures are as presented in the film and have not been independently verified in this essay.
Silencing Detective Grus. Physician’s on-screen account of the loss of a patient’s pregnancy following her second injection.
Silencing Detective Grus. Continuation of the bereaved mother’s testimony regarding aftermath and the injection as the sole differentiating variable from her prior healthy pregnancies.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen commentary regarding Pfizer’s February 2021 knowledge of injection-related pregnancy outcomes, including placental changes, fetal deaths, and dyspnea in one child. See also Pfizer, “5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021,” released under U.S. court order following Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency v. FDA, for the underlying pharmacovigilance record.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the February 2021 correspondence between the Canadian Medical Protective Society and the federal Deputy Minister of Health.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s account of her policing career.
Silencing Detective Grus. Direct statement by Detective Grus regarding her investigative work.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen statement regarding the Ontario Police Association’s Top Cop nomination process.
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Account of Detective Grus’s two late-2021 and early-2022 briefings to Chief Peter Sloly and senior Ottawa Police officers, and the subsequent February 2022 suspension.
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Account of the Ottawa Police wiretap of Detective Grus and her family under the “urgent emergency” provisions of the Criminal Code, and the tribunal testimony that the wiretap produced no evidence.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s account of the sequence of charges.
Silencing Detective Grus; Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Accounts of the CBC leak and the declined internal investigation into it.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s account of the rumors introduced into the disciplinary file.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s direct statement in response to the plea offer.
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Account of the Public Health Agency of Canada personnel monitoring and influencing the Grus file from March 2022, the familial relationship between two PHAC personnel and one of the nine deceased infants, and the grandmother’s senior scientific manager role at PHAC and association with the National Advisory Committee on Immunization.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the outside counsel arrangement and the estimated cost to the Ottawa taxpayer.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the hearing officer’s decision to forgo independent legal advice.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the prosecutor’s conduct during hearing objections.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s account of the prosecutor’s line of questioning comparing her conduct to that of Colonel Russell Williams.
Silencing Detective Grus; Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Accounts of the exclusion of all five defense expert witnesses, including three medical doctors.
Silencing Detective Grus. Detective Grus’s account of being ordered to stop testifying about the Pfizer trial infant outcomes.
Silencing Detective Grus; Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Accounts of Inspector Hugh O’Toole’s email to Detective Grus shortly before her testimony, and defense counsel Bath-Sheba van den Berg’s characterization of the email as witness intimidation.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the differential treatment between Detective Grus and Officer Eric Post by the police association.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the promotions of witnesses who testified against Detective Grus.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen identification of Acting Chief Steve Bell and his current position as Chief Operating Officer of the Ottawa Police Service.
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. Account of the trial evidence showing that three of the nine deceased infants died from causes officially recognized as adverse reactions to the COVID-19 injections. See also Vincent Gircys, “For Police: A Message to Serving and Retired Officers,” grusjusticeproject.org.
Silencing Detective Grus. Direct statement by Detective Grus regarding the families of the deceased infants.
Grus Justice Project. “Grus Case.” grusjusticeproject.org. See also the on-screen date of verdict in Silencing Detective Grus.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the ruling’s “no defenses” reasoning.
Silencing Detective Grus. On-screen account of the change to the Police Services Act requiring supervisor permission for investigations, and the ruling’s application of that framework to investigations into government officials.
Silencing Detective Grus. Statement by a scholar interviewed in the opening minutes of the film on the function of critical books and films.
Silencing Detective Grus. Scholar’s closing story on the firing squad and the significance of the soldiers who complied.
Grus Justice Project. “Silencing Detective Grus – 1 Day Access.” grusjusticeproject.org/buy/silencing-detective-grus-1-day-access/. Twenty-four-hour rental at CA$20 (regular CA$40).
Grus Justice Project. “Home.” grusjusticeproject.org. Host a Screening and donation pathways.
Donald Best, “Sentencing Update: September 5, 2025,” Grus Justice Project, grusjusticeproject.org. Report of the September 4, 2025 adjournment of the sentencing hearing to a date in 2026.
In Print
Ten of my books are now available as paperbacks, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The Unvaccinated lays out the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices — as far as I know, the only book of its kind. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit argues that cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth are a dietary problem the dental profession treats surgically. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets — food, vaccines, and a profession trained by the industries whose products cause the harm. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM, the collapse of the serotonin hypothesis, and the specific damage done by every major psychiatric drug class.
Three take on the remedies and paradigm questions mainstream medicine actively suppresses. The DMSO Book covers 100,000 studies, zero deaths, and one approval — the suppressed science of medicine’s most versatile compound. Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy collects the interviews, protocols, and evidence from the doctors and researchers they tried to silence. No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews, catalogues 258 failed contagion experiments and the case against germ theory itself — the paradigm question underneath the whole shelf.
Two more take on the remedies already in your kitchen. Baking Soda locates sodium bicarbonate inside the terrain framework industrial medicine buried — the compound already in your cupboard, and what it does at the level of the blood, kidneys, lungs, digestion, and skin. The Castor Oil Book recovers four thousand years of documented practice on the medicine mainstream healthcare quietly stopped talking about — the kitchen bottle that doesn’t sit well in a system built on prescriptions and procedures.
A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the sceptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman has issued a critique of Canada’s participation in the US-led war against Iran, highlighting the contradiction between Ottawa’s military cooperation with Washington and the Trump administration’s ongoing economic and diplomatic assault on Canadian sovereignty.
In a pointed social media post on Monday, Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, mocked Canada’s submissive stance toward the United States despite repeated humiliations from President Donald Trump.
“Washington calls Canada its 51st state; Washington imposes tariffs on Canadian goods; Washington insults Canada and threatens to punish it over wildfire smoke,” Baqaei wrote, accompanying his statement with an image of a hockey match. “Ottawa’s response: Understood, Sir!”
The Iranian spokesman’s remarks come amid escalating US economic aggression against its northern neighbor. President Trump has repeatedly suggested that Canada should become the “51st U.S. state,” proposing to erase the 5,525-mile-long border that separates the two nations.
Most recently, on July 20, 2026, Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose devastating 50% additional tariffs on certain Canadian imports, further straining ties with America’s second-largest trade partner.
The administration has also threatened to impose 100% tariffs on all Canadian imports should Ottawa finalize certain trade agreements.
Trump has even blamed Canada for wildfire smoke affecting the United States, accusing Ottawa of “wilful negligence” over forest management and threatening additional punitive measures.
Ottawa’s military complicity
Despite this relentless hostility, Canada has positioned itself as a willing participant in the US-led military campaign against Iran.
On March 19, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that Canada is willing “to contribute to efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” signaling Ottawa’s readiness to support US military objectives in the region.
While Canadian officials have publicly claimed that the country was “not consulted, did not participate, and has no plans to participate in the offensive actions against Iran,” experts have pointed out that Canada’s military is deeply integrated into American command structures.
A Canadian military base, Camp Canada, located within the Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, was struck by Iranian missiles on March 2, 2026, revealing the extent of Canada’s involvement in the conflict zone.
Additionally, a Canadian colonel’s receipt of a military medal raised questions about Canada’s actual role in supporting US operations against Iran.
Baqaei’s critique drew a sharp analogy to Canada’s beloved national pastime, stating: “THIS IS NOT HOCKEY NIGHT IN CANADA; IT IS WASHINGTON’S FARM TEAM.”
The irony has not been lost on Canadian observers. Despite Trump’s economic warfare against Canada, which has contributed to the country slipping into technical recession, Ottawa continues to align itself with Washington’s [actually Israel’s] military agenda.
Domestically, the Iran war has raised energy prices and inflation in Canada, leading to elevated transportation costs and food prices for Canadian consumers.
Public opinion remains strongly opposed to military involvement, with nearly six in ten Canadians (58%) opposing US and Israeli bombing of Iran.
The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denounced the latest claims by Israeli officials over the occupied Golan Heights, emphasizing that the strategic region is an “inseparable” part of Syria.
The ministry, in a statement released on Thursday, vehemently condemned the rhetoric of criminal Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Golan Heights, occupied by the Tel Aviv regime for almost 60 years, will remain part of Israel “for eternity”, and his fierce opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
“Basically, the leader of the criminal gang and mafia ruling over the occupied Palestinian territories is not in a position to comment on the formation of an independent Palestinian state, because the Palestinian land belongs to the Palestinian people, and the racist illusions of the genocidal Zionist regime cannot change this reality,” the statement added.
It added that “the Golan Heights are an inseparable part of the territory of Syria, and the colonial ambitions of a usurping and occupying entity cannot change its legal and historical realities.”
The Iranian foreign ministry also condemned Colombia’s recent recognition of the Israeli regime’s sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, calling it a violation of the UN Charter and international law.
“Within this framework, the Colombian government’s recent decision to recognize the sovereignty of the Zionist regime over the occupied Golan Heights is completely rejected and condemned, and constitutes a clear violation of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law concerning respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states,” the statement also read.
It noted that such an action also conflicts with the recognized principle of international law prohibiting recognition of the effects of unlawful acts and entails international responsibility of the Colombian government.
While emphasizing the legal, moral and humanitarian obligation of all governments, particularly Muslim countries, to help Palestinians achieve their right to self-determination and freedom from the Zionist regime’s occupation, apartheid and colonialism, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalled the responsibility of the UN Security Council to stop the occupation and relentless aggression of the Zionist regime against occupied Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and other countries in the region.
The statement went on to note that the Palestinian issue remains the most important humanitarian and moral subject of the contemporary world, which began in 1948 with the creation of a fabricated entity in the historic land of Palestine and, through its cancerous expansion, has made the entire West Asia region and the world insecure.
“There is no doubt that the comprehensive support of the United States and certain Western countries, including Britain, France, Germany and Canada, for the genocidal Zionist regime has been the main factor behind its impunity and has led to the continuation and intensification of its expansionism and crimes in the region,” the statement pointed out.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, while reiterating its principled position in support of the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people to liberate their land from occupation, strongly condemns any attempt to marginalize the Palestinian issue, the Iranian foreign ministry concluded.
An undercover investigation by Al Jazeera reveals how western donors evade charity law to provide aid to illegal Israeli settlements.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel has killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank. More than 230 of them are children. Attacks by settlers on rural Palestinian communities have increased, destroying property and capturing livestock, driving families from their homes. At the same time, the Israeli military has launched a large-scale assault on the densely populated Jenin refugee camp.
This film provides a comprehensive picture of the tactics the Israeli government uses to support the settlers and then, through infrastructure and building programmes, annex Palestinian land.
Western governments claim to oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and uphold international law. However, undercover reporters from Al Jazeera expose how donors based in some Western countries fund the expansion of illegal settlements.
Al Jazeera journalists secretly film meetings with pro-settler organisations in Israel, claiming to be donors based in the UK looking to make large contributions to their projects. They’re told how funds can be paid as tax-deductible donations to charities in the UK and Canada who then pay the money on to their organisations. It is unlawful for charities in the UK and Canada to use donations to support the illegal settlement of the West Bank.
The Israeli organisations tell our undercover reporters how donations can be used to campaign for the demolition of Palestinian homes and provide military-grade security equipment such as drones and night vision cameras to settlers. We are also told that funds can be used to buy guns for settlers in occupied East Jerusalem and equipment for soldiers serving in the Israeli army.
The Israeli organisations are aware that their activities are considered unlawful in Canada and the UK and suggest ways to disguise the intended purpose of the donations, routing the funds through affiliated third parties and, in some cases, misreporting the true nature of their spending.
Charities in the UK and Canada are required to do extensive due diligence on how funds paid overseas are spent and to ensure they comply with the law. Al Jazeera’s evidence points to serious failings in this process.
Washington has blocked the issuance of SSL security certificates for Fars News Agency‘s website, cutting the country’s most visited news outlet off from browser-trusted encryption, the agency revealed on 17 July.
Without valid certificates, visitors to the site face security warnings and restricted access, while the agency’s content has been removed from Google search results.
Technical assessments confirm that all major internationally recognized Certificate Authorities – including Let’s Encrypt, DigiCert, and Sectigo – have rejected certificate requests for the agency’s domains, citing US sanctions pressure.
The measure is the latest in a series of US actions against the outlet. The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control seized the agency’s .com domain in 2020, and in September 2023 added Fars and its CEO to the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) sanctions list.
The EU and Canada have since imposed sanctions of their own.
Fars has faced repeated efforts to restrict its reach, including the removal of its Instagram account, which had nearly three million followers.
Iran’s Computer Emergency Response and Coordination Center (MAHER) says the agency has been the primary target of sustained cyberattacks aimed at disrupting the country’s domestic media infrastructure.
The block forms part of a broader western campaign to dominate the media narrative against its geopolitical adversaries by suppressing opposing voices while artificially amplifying its own.
Western governments are simultaneously dismantling online anonymity at home through identity verification laws that, under the pretext of child protection, tie every post to a legal identity – backed by biometric verification requirements, VPN restrictions, and the scanning of private messages.
The measures tighten control over expression both abroad and within their own borders, amid ongoing crackdowns on pro-Palestine and pro-Iran speech.
An investigation by TIME revealed that Israel has been paying $1.5 million per month to Clock Tower X, a firm owned by US President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale, to run a covert influence campaign targeting young US conservatives through paid influencer networks, coordinated messaging in private group chats, and websites designed to shape how AI chatbots characterize Israel.
US officials now believe the operation turned against Trump himself, as paid influencers attacked the now broken ceasefire with Iran.
In May, Israel allocated roughly $730 million to its 2026 Hasbara propaganda budget, more than four times the previous year’s allocation, even as polling shows 60 percent of US respondents now view Israel unfavorably, with experts dismissing the spending as unable to offset the impact of its genocide in Gaza.
The Cradle analyst Mohamad Hasan Sweidan previously detailed how Israel operates a “Digital Iron Dome,” a system combining mass reporting campaigns to take down content exposing its crimes in Gaza, algorithmic ad warfare that floods timelines with state propaganda, and hundreds of millions of dollars in influencer contracts and AI-targeted campaigns to manipulate global perceptions.
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
