Atlas›Domain XII · Complementary, energy & biofield›Guide 163
Guide XII-163

Cantron and Protocel

James V. Sheridan, Edward J. Sopcak1936United States
A 32 · L 55 · M 1312 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

Version followed: the Entelev / Cancell / Cantron / Protocel family of chemical mixtures as described by the US National Cancer Institute PDQ summaries (health-professional version last updated 2018; patient version last updated 2015), the 1993 FDA Consumer account of the Michigan injunction case, and the 2008 FTC complaint and order against the Cantron seller Nu-Gen Nutrition. This is a historical harm account. There is no legitimate way for a psychotherapist to use, supply or recommend these products; the guide covers recognising them and helping people who are considering, using or recovering from them.

1. What it was

One product family, many names. Cancell is a liquid chemical mixture that has circulated under many names: Entelev, Sheridan's Formula, Jim's Juice, JS-114, JS-101, 126-F and "Crocinic" or "Croconic" acid. NCI describes Cantron and Protocel as "Cancell-like" products made by later manufacturers with differing formulations. [source: NCI PDQ HP; NCI PDQ patient; FDA Consumer 1993 via Quackwatch]

Who developed it, where and when.

  • James V. Sheridan, described by NCI as a chemist or biochemist in Michigan, developed the mixture and called it Entelev. Sources differ on the date: NCI's patient summary says the late 1930s; NCI's health-professional summary says the 1950s; a 2012 blog post gives 1936 as Sheridan's own claimed date and calls this history poorly documented. [uncertain: dates conflict between sources]
  • The 1993 FDA Consumer account reports that the formulation "came to James Sheridan in a dream"; a secondary account (Andrew Weil, 2010) says Sheridan described it as coming from God in a dream. [source: FDA Consumer 1993 via Quackwatch; Weil 2010]
  • Entelev was originally given free to people with terminal cancer. Sheridan himself told FDA in 1980 that about 600 people had used it for cancer. [source: NCI PDQ HP; FDA Consumer 1993]
  • From July 1984 a second maker, named in the court record as Edward (NCI: Edmund) J. Sopcak, produced it in his kitchen under the trademarked name Cancell and distributed it free to people with cancer, AIDS and other conditions, with Sheridan referring patients to him. [source: FDA Consumer 1993; NCI PDQ HP] [uncertain: first name differs between sources]
  • After the 1989 injunction, similar products continued to appear from other companies, sold in the US as dietary supplements under names including Cantron and Protocel. [source: NCI PDQ patient; Respectful Insolence 2012] A Michigan company, Nu-Gen Nutrition, Inc. (with its parent Vitasalus, Inc. and officer Robert Cloutier), sold Cantron online until a 2008 FTC case. [source: FTC complaint 2008] Current Protocel sellers are not verified here. [uncertain: not verified]

What it contained. The exact composition is unknown and varied by maker. FDA listed inositol, nitric acid, sodium sulfite (sulfate in the 1993 article), potassium hydroxide, sulfuric acid and catechol. An independent analysis of one formulation found 12 compounds, none known to treat cancer. "Crocinic acid", cited by the original maker, does not appear to be a known compound. [source: NCI PDQ HP; FDA Consumer 1993]

Stated rationale (as the makers held it, not as fact). NCI reports two manufacturer theories. [source: NCI PDQ HP]

  • Sheridan's: cells are normal, cancerous or "primitive", distinguished by how they use oxygen; the mixture supposedly pushes cancer cells wholly into glycolysis so the body recognises and destroys them. Wikipedia links this to Otto Warburg's ideas and a claim that the formula lowers cell "potential". [uncertain: secondary, unverified]
  • Sopcak's: a bacterium, Progenitor cryptocides, supposedly activated by diet-related damage, pushes cells toward glycolysis; the mixture makes cancer cells digest themselves, with "waste" leaving the body through urine, stool, vaginal discharge, sweat, vomit or coughing. He also described changing the "vibrational energy and frequency" of cancer cells so that they "autodigest". [source: NCI PDQ HP; Respectful Insolence 2012]
  • Later Cantron marketing spoke of a "bio-electrical wellness formulation" that lowers cellular voltage so cancer cells "starve", and of an "amazing cellular cleanser". [source: Respectful Insolence 2012; FTC complaint 2008]
  • NCI's position: increased glycolysis in cancer cells is accepted science but is not considered a root cause of cancer, and there is no evidence that the mixture produces purely glycolytic metabolism, that P. cryptocides exists, or that the product works against cancer.

How it was sold to patients.

  • Claims: an "80+ percent cure rate" in all types of cancer (Sopcak era), 50 to 80% effectiveness against cancers and use by over 15,000 patients (manufacturer claims reported by NCI), never published in peer-reviewed journals and resting on testimonials. [source: FDA Consumer 1993; NCI PDQ]
  • Uses claimed beyond cancer: AIDS, lupus, scleroderma, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, emphysema, Parkinson disease, blood-pressure problems, some epilepsies and mental illnesses, and (in other accounts) chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, ALS, Alzheimer's and more. [source: NCI PDQ HP; Weil 2010]
  • Originally free, framed as a gift to the dying; later sold as a supplement (Cantron about US$60 per bottle in 2008, also sold within a "Phase I Wellness Program" package, alongside apricot kernels). [source: FTC complaint 2008]
  • Sold with supplement disclaimers while promoters and support-group meetings made the cure claims the company did not make directly. [source: Respectful Insolence 2012]

Regulatory status (one line). Not approved by FDA for any disease; IND #20258 (1982) inactive because composition and animal data were never supplied; permanent federal injunction since 1989; FTC order against a Cantron seller in 2008. [source: NCI PDQ HP; FTC order 2008]

Evidence status (one line). NCI animal tests (1978, 1980) found no substantial antitumour activity, its 1990–91 cell-line screen found only activity it attributed to nonspecific salt effects at concentrations far above those achievable in the body, and no clinical trial has been reported. [source: NCI PDQ HP]

2. What was actually done

A typical course, assembled from regulator, court and NCI descriptions. The individual elements are sourced; the sequence is a composite. [synthesis]

  1. Finding it. People with cancer, often advanced or after a frightening diagnosis, met the product through word of mouth, testimonials, websites using search tags such as "cancer cures" and "alternative cancer treatment", and promoter-led monthly support meetings. [source: FTC complaint 2008; Respectful Insolence 2012]
  2. No real assessment or selection. There was no diagnostic work-up by the makers. The product was offered for nearly any diagnosis: all cancer types, AIDS, autoimmune, neurological and psychiatric illness. In the early period Sheridan referred enquirers to Sopcak, who supplied them directly. [source: FDA Consumer 1993; NCI PDQ]
  3. How "consent" was shaped. People were given confident cure-rate figures and testimonials (for example a testimonial that a tumour had become "scar tissue"), told a story of scientific suppression, and given no information about the absence of trials. Sopcak told FDA inspectors in 1987 that chemotherapy was an "unapproved therapy" that "kills 100 percent of the people who use it", and the FDA account says he told patients to stop chemotherapy and other conventional treatment. Later sellers stated that chemotherapy interferes with Protocel. [source: FDA Consumer 1993; FTC complaint 2008; Weil 2010]
  4. Setting and staff. No clinic and no clinicians: the product was made in private kitchens without testing of raw or finished material, without written manufacturing or cleaning procedures, and without complaint files; acidity was checked in a home kitchen. Patients used it at home, alone or with family carers. [source: FDA Consumer 1993]
  5. Administration (qualitative only). NCI reports the mixture was taken by mouth, inserted rectally, or applied to the skin. Use was long-term. [source: NCI PDQ HP; NCI PDQ patient]
  6. Accompanying rules. Users were told to take a digestive enzyme (bromelain) and to avoid high intakes of vitamins C and E, on the claim that vitamins raise cell energy while the product lowers it. [source: NCI PDQ patient]
  7. Packaging into a programme. Later sellers bundled the liquid into "wellness programmes" with other products such as apricot kernels (laetrile). [source: FTC complaint 2008]
  8. How "progress" was judged. By testimonials and subjective feeling rather than imaging or blood tests. The Sopcak theory treated discharges, vomiting, coughing and sweating as the body excreting digested cancer cells, so new symptoms could be read as proof the product was working. Fatigue in the first weeks was described by the maker as expected. [source: NCI PDQ HP; NCI PDQ patient]
  9. Non-response. Where conventional treatment was eventually accepted, promoters framed it as a temporary setback and the product as the "real cure". A 2012 Canadian news report, discussed by a surgeon-blogger, described a man with metastatic upper-gastrointestinal cancer who refused conventional treatment, began chemotherapy only when given about two months to live, and still called Cantron "the stuff that's going to cure me". [source: Respectful Insolence 2012]

3. How it caused harm

  • Abandoning or delaying effective cancer care. This is the main documented mechanism. FDA called Cancell "particularly dangerous" because patients were told to stop chemotherapy and other conventional treatment. [source: FDA Consumer 1993] In a US National Cancer Database study (Johnson, Gross, Yu; JNCI 2017; 840 patients with breast, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer, 2004–2013), people who chose alternative medicine instead of conventional treatment had a higher risk of death, seen for breast, lung and colorectal cancer. [source: Futurity 2017 summary] [uncertain: effect sizes not verified]
  • Misreading disease progression as "detox". Because the theory said cancer leaves the body as discharge, vomit, cough and sweat, worsening symptoms could be welcomed rather than reported. [source: NCI PDQ HP; mechanism of delay is synthesis]
  • Direct effects. NCI lists temporary fatigue in the first weeks, nausea, and diarrhoea in one person who took more than the maker advised. No systematic safety data exist. [source: NCI PDQ]
  • Unknown and variable product. Kitchen manufacture without testing, unknown composition and different recipes across makers mean nobody could know what was being taken. [source: FDA Consumer 1993; NCI PDQ HP]
  • Financial harm. Later versions were costly, often bought repeatedly and in bundles. The 2008 FTC order entered an $830,434 judgment against the Cantron seller, suspended on payment of $246,000 for consumer redress, and required letters to past buyers urging them to talk to their doctor. A 2012 commentary raised concern about families' financial ruin. [source: FTC order 2008; Respectful Insolence 2012]
  • Group and promoter pressure. Promoter-led meetings reportedly encouraged members to avoid science-based treatment while the company kept disclaimers. [source: Respectful Insolence 2012]
  • Psychological sequelae. False hope followed by collapse when disease progresses; guilt ("I didn't follow it strictly enough"); regret after delay; bereaved relatives' anger and self-blame; conflict between relatives who backed the product and those who did not; lost time for palliative planning and goodbyes. [synthesis]
  • Who was most at risk. People with treatable or curable cancers who declined or interrupted treatment; people with advanced cancer seeking any hope; people with distrust of medicine or prior bad experiences; isolated people drawn into promoter groups; children and dependent adults whose carers chose for them; people with chronic illnesses (MS, lupus, diabetes, HIV) who were also targeted. [synthesis, drawing on the claimed-use lists in NCI PDQ]
  • Documented deaths. No individual death directly attributed to the product's chemical effects is documented by the regulators and NCI; the documented danger is loss of effective treatment. [uncertain: not verified]

4. Recognising it today

Names and product forms. Cancell, CanCell, Cantron, Protocel (including numbered "formulas" [uncertain: not verified]), Entelev, Sheridan's Formula, Jim's Juice, JS-114, JS-101, 126-F, Crocinic or Croconic acid. Liquids or tablets sold as dietary supplements, sometimes inside "wellness programmes". NCI notes a separate product sold as "vibrationally tuned" distilled water under the Cancell name. [source: NCI PDQ HP; FDA Consumer 1993; FTC complaint 2008; Wikipedia, uncertain: secondary, unverified]

Phrases and rationales that signal it. [source: NCI PDQ; FTC complaint 2008; Respectful Insolence 2012]

  • "Lowers the voltage" or "energy" of cancer cells; cancer cells "starve", "lyse" or "autodigest".
  • Cancer as "primitive" or "anaerobic" cells; selective appeals to Otto Warburg.
  • A hidden microbe (Progenitor cryptocides) as the cause of cancer.
  • "Vibrational energy and frequency" of cells.
  • "Cellular cleanser", "bio-electrical wellness formulation", "most potent antioxidant".
  • Instructions to avoid vitamin C or E because they "raise cell energy", and claims that chemotherapy or radiotherapy "interferes" with the product.
  • New discharge, vomiting, coughing or sweating described as cancer "coming out".
  • Cure rates of 50 to 80% or more "for all cancers", thousands of unnamed users, testimonials of tumours becoming "scar tissue".
  • A founder story involving a dream or divine revelation, and suppression by FDA or the medical industry.
  • Claims to treat a long list of unrelated diseases.

Selling patterns. A company that "only makes" the product and carries a not-intended-to-treat disclaimer, with cure claims made by independent promoters, forums and support meetings; search advertising on cancer terms; bundles with other alternative cancer products such as apricot kernels; price per bottle with long-term repeat use. [source: FTC complaint 2008; Respectful Insolence 2012]

Red flags in a colleague's or service's practice. [synthesis, informed by APA Ethics Code 3.04, 3.06]

  • A therapist, coach, naturopath or support-group leader recommending, supplying or selling the product, or receiving referral fees.
  • Advising a client to stop, delay or "take a break from" oncology treatment.
  • Reframing new symptoms as detox or healing reactions instead of urging medical review.
  • Discouraging the client from telling their oncologist.
  • Group settings where doubters are shamed or where members are told that fear or negativity caused their cancer to spread.

How legitimate approaches differ. Integrative oncology (see 172) uses complementary methods alongside standard treatment, never instead of it, discloses everything to the treating team, and does not claim to cure cancer. The Warburg effect is real cancer biology studied in mainstream research, but this does not make products marketed on it effective. Genuine experimental treatments are offered through registered clinical trials with ethics approval, written consent and medical monitoring, not through supplements sold online. [source: NCI PDQ HP for Warburg point; remainder synthesis]

5. What to do instead and how to help those harmed

Recommended alternatives (to discuss with the medical team, never prescribed by the therapist). Evidence-based oncology care and second opinions from cancer specialists; clinical trials found through the treating team; early palliative care for symptom control and quality of life at any stage; integrative oncology services that work alongside treatment (see 172); psycho-oncology support for the person and family. [synthesis]

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work. The therapist never performs, sells, prescribes or recommends Cancell-type products and never advises on medicines or supplements; questions about these go to the oncologist, GP or pharmacist. [synthesis; APA Ethics Code 2.01, 3.06]

5.1 Asking routinely and without judgement

  • Purpose / when: at intake and at reviews with anyone affected by cancer or serious chronic illness, so that alternative use is disclosed early. [synthesis]
  • Steps: ask as a normal part of health history; list categories (supplements, special liquids or "formulas", diets, clinics, online programmes); ask what, since when, from whom, at what cost, and whether the oncologist knows; record the answer factually in the notes; thank the client for telling you.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Lots of people with cancer try other things alongside or instead of what their doctors offer. Is there anything like that you're using or thinking about?"
  • Watch for: product names or phrases from Section 4; secrecy from the medical team; hesitation suggesting fear of being judged. It is working when the client brings the topic back unprompted.

5.2 Exploring meaning, hopes and the explanatory model

  • Purpose / when: once use or interest is disclosed, to understand what the product means before any discussion of risk. [synthesis]
  • Steps: ask how they came across it and who introduced it; ask what they understand it does and how they will know it is working; explore what it gives them (control, hope, avoiding feared side effects, distrust after bad care, faith, belonging to a group, loyalty to a relative); reflect back without arguing; name the values underneath (wanting to live, wanting to be in charge).
  • Example language (illustrative): "What does taking it give you that the hospital treatment doesn't?" "If it were working, what would you expect to notice?"
  • Watch for: fear of chemotherapy based on others' experiences; trauma from previous medical care; magical or catastrophic thinking under acute stress; anxiety or depression needing their own treatment (see Domain II). Working: the client can describe both hopes and fears more openly.

5.3 Autonomy-respecting decision support

  • Purpose / when: when the client is deciding whether to start, continue, or use the product instead of oncology care. Adults with capacity have the right to decline treatment; the therapist's role is to make the decision informed and freely made, not to win it. [synthesis; APA Ethics Code Principle E, 3.10]
  • Steps: (1) ask permission to talk about the decision; (2) separate the questions: "what do I want from treatment?", "what does each option realistically offer?", "who can answer the medical questions?"; (3) help the client write their questions for the oncologist (for example: what happens if I delay; what is the aim of treatment, cure or control; what side-effect support exists); (4) share, if the client wants it, that NCI and FDA have found no evidence the product works and that regulators have acted against its sellers, offering the NCI summary for them to read; (5) explore whether the choice is free of pressure from promoters or relatives; (6) agree that the decision can be revisited; (7) document.
  • Example language (illustrative): "It's your decision, and I'll respect it. My job is to help you make it with the full picture. Would it help to work out together what you want to ask your oncologist?"
  • Watch for: decisions made in the first days of shock; a client repeating a promoter's script word for word; signs of impaired capacity (delirium, brain metastases, severe depression) that need medical assessment. Working: the client attends the oncology appointment with their own questions.

5.4 Coordinating with the oncologist, GP, pharmacist and palliative team

  • Purpose / when: whenever the client is using or considering the product, with their consent. [synthesis; APA Ethics Code 3.09, 4.05]
  • Steps: explain why sharing helps (the team can monitor, check for interactions, and not misread symptoms); obtain written consent specifying what will be shared; share only what is needed; encourage the client to tell the team directly and offer to rehearse it; invite the team to involve palliative care where appropriate; record the contact.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Would it be all right if I let your oncologist know you're taking this, so they can keep an eye on things? You can be in the room when we talk, or tell them yourself first."
  • Watch for: refusal of consent (respect it, keep the door open, revisit; disclosure without consent only where law or serious risk requires it, per APA 4.05); new symptoms being labelled "detox": encourage prompt medical review. Working: the medical team and client talk openly about everything being taken.

5.5 Supporting a client who chooses the product anyway

  • Purpose / when: when an adult with capacity proceeds despite information. The goal is to keep them safe and connected to medical care, without endorsing the product. [synthesis]
  • Steps: say plainly that you cannot recommend it and why, once, without lecturing; keep the therapeutic relationship; ask them to stay under oncology follow-up and to report new or worsening symptoms to their doctor rather than treating them as "detox"; agree a "what would make you reconsider" point; track spending; keep palliative and advance-care-planning conversations available.
  • Example language (illustrative): "I can't recommend this, and I'd be worried if it replaced your cancer treatment. I'm still here with you whatever you decide. Could we agree that you'll keep seeing your oncologist?"
  • Watch for: rapid physical decline, weight loss, new pain or breathlessness; isolation within a promoter group; escalating purchases. Working: the client keeps medical appointments and reports symptoms.

5.6 Assessment of clients who went through it

  • Purpose / when: when a client (or relative) has used the product and now faces progression, late treatment, or bereavement. [synthesis]
  • Steps: take a neutral history of what was used, for how long, who advised it, and what was given up; screen for depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, complicated grief and suicidal thinking using standard risk assessment; ask about debt and spending; ask about continuing contact with promoters or groups; check whether the medical team knows the full history.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Can you tell me how you came to use it, and what it's been like since?"
  • Watch for: shame that blocks disclosure; hopelessness after the hoped-for cure failed; thoughts of not deserving treatment now. Working: the client can tell the story without collapsing into self-blame.

5.7 Grief, regret and self-blame

  • Purpose / when: for the person who delayed treatment and now has a worse outlook, and for bereaved relatives. [synthesis]
  • Steps: validate that the choice was made under fear, hope and persuasive marketing; separate responsibility from blame (the sellers made false claims, which regulators acted against); use established grief and compassion-focused methods; for the person with advanced illness, support meaning-making, legacy work and goodbyes alongside palliative care; for the bereaved, screen for prolonged grief and offer evidence-based grief treatment.
  • Example language (illustrative): "You chose what you believed gave you the best chance. You were given claims that weren't true. Both of those can be held at once."
  • Watch for: persistent rumination on "if only"; guilt turning into self-harm risk; anger aimed at oneself or the family. Working: regret softens into grief that can be shared.

5.8 Family conflict

  • Purpose / when: when relatives disagree about the product or about treatment, or blame each other after a death. [synthesis]
  • Steps: with the client's consent, meet family members; give each a turn to state their fear and hope; name the shared goal (the person's wellbeing); keep the patient's own wishes central where they have capacity; agree communication rules; refer to palliative family meetings where the team offers them.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Everyone here wants the same thing: for them to have the best time possible. You're disagreeing about how. Can we hear what each of you is most afraid of?"
  • Watch for: a relative controlling access to medical care; scapegoating after death; children caught between parents. Working: the family can disagree without cutting off.

5.9 Financial harm

  • Purpose / when: when spending on products, bundles or programmes is large or concealed. [synthesis]
  • Steps: ask about cost directly, including any crowdfunding or family fundraising; help the client total spending and debts; link to financial counselling or social work in the cancer service; note that past buyers of some products received regulator-ordered notices and redress (FTC, 2008); support reporting.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Would it help to look together at what this has cost so far, so you can decide what you can afford?"
  • Watch for: borrowing, selling assets, or pressure to buy "the full programme". Working: the client makes spending decisions with full information.

5.10 Safeguarding children and adults at risk

  • Purpose / when: when a child, or an adult lacking capacity, is being given the product or is being kept from medical care by a carer. [synthesis]
  • Steps: follow your local child-protection and adult-safeguarding procedures; consult your safeguarding lead; share concerns with the treating team; where a child is being deprived of necessary medical care, refer to child protection services, which in several countries have sought court orders for treatment; consider the child's assent and views at their developmental level; document. Never name a child outside the referral process.
  • Example language (illustrative, to a parent): "I can see how much you love them and how frightened you are. I need to be honest that I'm worried about them not getting their cancer treatment, and I have to talk to the people whose job is to make sure children get medical care."
  • Watch for: missed oncology appointments; a child told to hide what they take; parental isolation within a promoter group. Working: the child remains in medical care.

5.11 Group pressure and promoters

  • Purpose / when: when the client attends promoter meetings, forums or programmes. [synthesis]
  • Steps: explore what the group gives (belonging, hope) and what it costs; ask how the group treats doubt or people who also use chemotherapy; help the client keep relationships outside the group; support a gradual exit if the client chooses.
  • Example language (illustrative): "What happens in the group when someone decides to have chemotherapy?"
  • Watch for: shaming of doubt, pressure to recruit or buy, being told fear or negativity causes cancer to spread. Working: the client can voice doubts safely.

5.12 Reporting

  • Purpose / when: when the client wishes to report a seller, or when a practitioner is supplying or promoting the product. [synthesis]
  • Steps: support the client to report false cancer-cure marketing to the consumer protection regulator (in the US, the FTC; in Canada, the Competition Bureau, which acted on cancer-cure sellers in 2008) and unapproved drug sales or adverse events to the medicines regulator (in the US, FDA; in other countries the national medicines regulator); report a registered health professional who promotes or supplies it to their licensing board; use safeguarding routes for children and adults at risk. [source: FTC press release 2008 for FTC, FDA and Competition Bureau actions; other routes synthesis, uncertain: not verified]
  • Example language (illustrative): "If you'd like to, we can look at how to report this, so other people are warned."
  • Watch for: fear of retaliation or shame; the client's readiness. Working: the client feels they acted, not just were acted upon.

Handling problems (therapist stance). [synthesis]

  • Client angry at medicine: acknowledge real grievances; separate past bad care from current choices.
  • Client sees the therapist as "one of them": restate that the decision is theirs and that your concern is their wellbeing, not loyalty to any system.
  • Therapist's own frustration or helplessness: use supervision; avoid arguing facts repeatedly, which can entrench belief.
  • Conflict of interest: never sell or refer to products or courses; declare any links (APA Ethics Code 3.05, 3.06).

Sources

Web sources:

← Previous · XII-162714-X (Naessens)Next · XII-164 →Sodium bicarbonate therapy (Simoncini)