Braund Cancer Treatment Is Now Condemned

Grey River Argus, 10 April 1948, Page 5

Braund Cancer Treatment Is Now Condemned

SYDNEY, April 9. “The report is unanimous and leaves no room for doubt,” said the Sydney "Morning Herald”, commenting on the findings of the committee appointed to inquire into Mr. Braund’s claims to cure cancer. Mr. Braund has come out of the affair very badly. Had he honestly believed in his mysterious treatment, it is hard to understand why he should have been so obstructive during the inquiry.” . , . The Sydney “Sun”, which originally brought Mr. Braund’s claims to light and asked for an impartial scientific inquiry .says that the report as it stands must be accepted, though it is not proof against criticism. The Sydney “Telegraph” uncompromisingly demands action against Braund. ‘ The conclusions reached in the report, signed by all members of the committee and tabled in the State Parliament by the Premier this afternoon, are: — (1) Although the number of patients examined has not been large, it has included cases typical enough of cancer, with varying manifestations. (2) The lack of co-operation by Mr. Braund, and his actions in thwarting the examination of patients, are incompatible with his alleged desire to have his claim thoroughly investgiated. (3) His alleged specific cure for cancer is an injection of alum below the surface skin, which kills off the tissues, with subsequent. . separation of a slough which is claimed to be the actual cancer. Such an injection of alum can in no way effect the course of the cancer. (4) The exploitation of Mr. Braund’s alleged cure is an _ outstanding public mischief with international ramifications. It has lulled sufferers into a false sense of security, thereby preventing them from obtaining proper treatment at a curable stage of the disease, or at least affording them an opportunity to prolong their lives. DOCTORS’ DIAGNOSIS FAULTY. 'The report says: “Mr Braund’s claims were first brought, to notice by an article m the Sydney “Sun” of December 3, 1947, based primarily on a case which was later proved to have been the subject of faulty diagnosis by doctors. This patient, convinced that he had only six weeks to live, underwent treatment by Mr. Braund, who removed what was alleged to be a cancer. “Subsequent events showed that the patient’s condition was caused by ulcerative colitis, which caused a spasm of the bowel. The patient still has this complaint and resolutely refuses to concede the possibility of an error in diagnosis. “Of the 16 cases chosen from 34. submitted by Mr. Braund, the committee found that some were readily accessible, some were of doubtful diagnosis, some were unsuitable, and the remainder —excepting six—refused to be examined, presumably on the advice of Mr. Braund. The report adds: “Judging by the histories of many patients, it seems that any lump or swelling on the skin surface, whether it be a mole, sebaceous cyst, or a simply fatty tumour, is diagnosed as cancer by Mr. Braund. Naturally such patients become in time living examples of the efficiency of Mr. Braund’s alleged cure.” CHANCES OF RECOVERY. Dealing with two cases, the committee expresses the belief that the longer the patients remain under Mr. Braund the less chance they have of recovering. The report says that Mr. Braund’s hot water and massage treatment could have no beneficial effects on the progress of the cancer, as the methods are based on unsound physiological and anatomical knowledge. The report adds that the“ Roberts cancer cure” investigated in Queensland in 1933, and the “Koch-Baker treatment” investigated in New Zealand in 1938, used a similar injection to Mr. Braund’s. Both were declared worthless. In a statement which was incorporated in the report, Dr. Morris said: “The opposition of Dr. Henry Brose to this report is not unexpected. The Braund treatment and the KochBaker treatment are similar, and the connecting link is Dr. Brose who has been closely associated with both. I find it difficult to oelieve that that connection is purely accidental.” After disclosures of the results of injecting aluminium, sulphate into animals." Dr. Brose agreed with Dr. Morris that alum in the same form was used by Mr. Braund. but he added: “The results on certa.n patients justify inquiry. I still think he has been judged too harshly. There were very few cases examined.’