For decades, critics dismissed the Hoxsey formula as worthless quackery. Yet modern
scientific research has revealed that many of its ingredients contain compounds with
genuine anticancer properties. The tragedy is not that Hoxsey's herbs were ineffective,
but that organized medicine refused to test them properly—leaving a question that
remains unanswered to this day.
The Central Paradox
Eight of nine Hoxsey tonic herbs have demonstrated antitumor activity
in scientific studies. Individual ingredients have progressed to human clinical trials.
Yet the complete Hoxsey formula—the actual treatment given to tens of thousands of
patients—has never been tested in a clinical trial. Not because it
failed testing, but because the medical establishment refused to test it.
The USDA Assessment
In 1988, Dr. James A. Duke—Chief of the USDA's Plant Taxonomy Laboratory and one
of the world's foremost authorities on medicinal plants—published a detailed analysis
of the Hoxsey herbs in HerbalGram. His findings systematically contradicted
decades of dismissal:
Duke's Key Findings
All Hoxsey herbs have Native American traditions of cancer usage, some extending back 3,000+ years
Several contained compounds of interest to the National Cancer Institute
Eight of nine herbs demonstrated antitumor activity in animal models
Five herbs showed significant antioxidant effects
All nine herbs exhibited antimicrobial activity
Only one (poke root) was identified as potentially toxic
Duke's overall assessment: The Hoxsey formula demonstrated "very significant
chemical and biological anticancer activity."
The OTA Report (1990)
The most thorough government review of Hoxsey therapy came from the U.S. Office of
Technology Assessment. Commissioned by Congress and titled Unconventional Cancer
Treatments, the report's analysis by medical historian Patricia Spain Ward reached
a remarkable conclusion:
"Orthodox scientific research has identified antitumor activity of one sort or another
in all but three of Hoxsey's plants."
"More recent literature leaves no doubt that Hoxsey's formula...does indeed contain
many plant substances of marked therapeutic activity."
The report acknowledged Hoxsey as "one of the longest-lived unconventional therapies
of the 20th century" and noted it retained "great popular appeal despite unrelenting
opposition." The critical caveat: while individual components showed promise, the
complete formula remained untested because no institution had been willing to
conduct the necessary trials.
Individual Herb Research
Modern research has validated the anticancer potential of several Hoxsey ingredients.
Here are the most significant findings:
Berberine (from Barberry): The Strongest Evidence
Berberine, the active compound in barberry root, has become one of the most studied
natural compounds for cancer prevention. The evidence includes the largest randomized
controlled trial ever conducted on a Hoxsey ingredient.
CBAR Study: Colorectal Adenoma Prevention
NCT02226185 | Published in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Study Design
1,108 participants across 7 hospitals in China
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
0.3g berberine twice daily vs. placebo
Primary Results
Adenoma recurrence: 36% vs. 47% (RR 0.77, p=0.001)
Advanced adenomas: 3% vs. 6%
Number needed to treat: 9
Six-Year Follow-Up (2024)
781 patients followed long-term
Adenoma recurrence: 34.7% vs. 52.1%
Benefits persisted years after treatment ended
Researchers concluded berberine "might be a crucial secondary chemopreventive agent
for colorectal adenoma."
Genistein and daidzein induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in colon cancer cells
Upregulates caspase-8 expression, a key enzyme in apoptosis
Inhibits PI3K activity, disrupting cancer cell survival signaling
Arrests cell cycle at G1 or G2/M phases, preventing cancer cell division
Binding to actin restricts cancer cell migration and metastasis
Important note: Red clover acts as an estrogen agonist and may stimulate
ER-positive breast cancer cells. Memorial Sloan Kettering advises breast cancer patients
to avoid it.
Licorice Root Compounds
Glycyrrhizin Research
Root contains 3-13% glycyrrhizin by weight
Active metabolite: 18-beta-glycyrrhetinic acid (GA)
Inhibits NF-kappaB, protein kinase C, and Ras pathways
Induces apoptosis via MAPK/STAT3/NF-kappaB signaling
Over 400 cytotoxic derivatives have been prepared from licorice compounds,
with 128 derivatives showing IC50 values below 30 microM against cancer cell lines.
Evidence Summary Table
Ingredient
In Vitro
Animal
Human Trials
Evidence Level
Berberine (Barberry)
Strong
Yes
RCT (1,108 patients)
Moderate-High
Arctigenin (Burdock)
Strong
Yes
Phase I
Low-Moderate
Licorice (Glycyrrhizin)
Strong
Yes
Phase II (combination)
Low-Moderate
Red Clover
Strong
Yes
Limited
Low
Bloodroot
Moderate
Limited
None
Very Low
Prickly Ash
Moderate
Limited
None
Very Low
Stillingia
Limited
None
None
Very Low
Poke Root
Limited
Limited
None
Very Low
The Hoxsey Paste and Mohs Surgery
Perhaps the most striking validation of Hoxsey's work came not from clinical trials
but from the operating room. The external paste Hoxsey used for skin cancers—zinc
chloride, bloodroot, and antimony trisulfide—was nearly identical to the formula
Dr. Frederic Mohs used to develop Mohs micrographic surgery in 1933.
What Mohs Proved
The zinc chloride paste could fix cancerous tissue for microscopic examination
When combined with staged excision and microscopy, cure rates exceeded 99%
Mohs surgery became the gold standard for certain skin cancers
The Critical Difference
Mohs used microscopic verification to ensure complete removal
Hoxsey used the paste alone without microscopic confirmation
Mohs later criticized using escharotics alone as unreliable
During his 1948 deposition in the libel case, Morris Fishbein was forced to admit
under oath that Hoxsey's paste did work for external cancers. This
admission—extracted from the AMA's most vocal critic of Hoxsey—stands as sworn testimony
that at least part of the Hoxsey treatment had genuine efficacy.
The Medical Establishment Response
Despite the evidence reviewed above, major medical organizations have maintained
their opposition to Hoxsey therapy:
Organization
Position
Note
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Banned (1960)
Called it "worthless and discredited"
National Cancer Institute
Insufficient evidence
Never conducted clinical trials
American Cancer Society
No evidence of effectiveness
Never conducted clinical trials
Memorial Sloan Kettering
Not recommended
Acknowledges individual herb activity
The pattern is consistent: these organizations state there is no evidence of
effectiveness, yet none of them has conducted or funded the clinical trials
that would generate such evidence. The 1953 Fitzgerald Report to Congress
directly addressed this:
"Public and private funds have been thrown around...to close up and destroy
clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform
to the viewpoint of medical associations."
Why the Formula Was Never Tested
The question of why a formula used by tens of thousands of patients was never
subjected to proper clinical trials has multiple answers:
Institutional Opposition
From its earliest days, the AMA targeted Hoxsey for destruction. Morris Fishbein's
"Bureau of Investigation" labeled the treatment a fraud without testing it, and
the organization spent decades lobbying for its prohibition.
Regulatory Barriers
After the FDA ban in 1960, conducting clinical trials in the United States became
legally impossible. The Bio-Medical Center in Mexico operates outside the FDA's
jurisdiction but lacks the resources for large-scale clinical research.
Economic Factors
The herbs in the Hoxsey formula cannot be patented. Pharmaceutical companies
have no incentive to fund expensive trials for treatments they cannot own.
Only non-profit or government funding could support such research.
Methodological Challenges
Hoxsey therapy includes not just the herbal tonic but dietary changes and
other components. Designing a controlled study for a multi-component
treatment presents genuine scientific challenges.
The Bottom Line
The scientific evidence tells a more nuanced story than either Hoxsey's fiercest
advocates or harshest critics have acknowledged. The herbs in his formula contain
compounds with genuine anticancer properties—properties now confirmed by modern
research, including randomized controlled trials.
Yet the complete Hoxsey formula has never been tested. This is not because it
failed testing, but because the institutional will to test it never existed.
The question Patricia Spain Ward raised in 1990 remains unanswered: Does the
specific combination of herbs in the Hoxsey formula have therapeutic value
beyond its individual components?
Until that trial is conducted, we are left with a paradox: a treatment dismissed
as worthless, yet containing ingredients that modern science has validated as
genuinely active against cancer.