The Eggplant Cure for Cancer

An interview with Dr. Bill Cham

Dr. Bill Elliot Cham was born in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. After studying Chemistry in the Netherlands, he took a Bachelor of Science in Biochemistry in Australia in 1975, and then a Doctor of Philosophy (Medicine). He has over 5,000 citations in the science citation index. Dr. Cham’s research interests cover a wide range of disciplines, and he has published over a hundred articles on topics ranging from pharmacology to iron metabolism, mineral research, lipidology, and oncology. He now lives in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu.

Dr. Jonathan Wright first brought Dr. Cham to my attention. While Susan and I were in Seattle recently I bought a copy of Dr. Cham’s book, The Eggplant Cancer Cure. I was astonished at the results Dr. Cham explained—and illustrated with photos—in his book. I was more astonished that finding a cure for cancer brought him not applause and thanks, but underhanded and spiteful opposition. The skin cancer basal cell carcinoma, for example, is the commonest cancer in Caucasians worldwide, and Dr. Cham has discovered a non-surgical, non-invasive cure that clinical studies show works 100%, removing the cancer and restoring the skin and flesh it had eroded. Not everyone, however, has been pleased with that news.

Dr. Cham kindly consented to this interview in August, 2008 by e-mail. You can order his book, The Eggplant Cancer Cure from If you or any of your friends or loved ones suffer from skin cancer, I heartily recommend you read Dr. Cham’s book.

Moneychanger: Eggplant sounds like an outlandish place to look for a cure for cancer.  What sent you down that road?”

Cham: In 1979 Mr Merv Gilliver, a veterinarian who was a close friend, brought to my attention that one of his clients had mentioned to him that the fruit of the Devil's Apple plant may contain anticancer properties. Merv was led to believe that his client became aware of this by folklore-medicine, probably from the aborigines.

Merv had tested this belief and he was able to show that the juice of the Devil's Apple fruit arrested the rate of growth of cancer that was growing in the eyes of Hereford cattle, but the cancer was not eradicated.

The Devil's Apple plant appears under various guises such as Kangaroo Apple and Sodom's Apple. Various botanical names have been ascribed to the Devil's Apple plant such as Solanum sodomaeun, S. hermannii, S. capsicoides but the proper name is S. linnaenum which is related to the potato (S. tuberosum) and tomato (S. lycopersicum) families.

Later we were able to identify active anticancer ingredients known now as glycoalkaloids in the Devil's Apple extract. 

Over the years we were able to determine that these glycoalkaloids which I named BEC were very effective for treatment of terminal internal cancer in animals. BEC was also very effective against human cancers as shown with cell cancer studies. Moreover BEC selectively killed cancer cells but did not affect normal cells.

Clinical trials with BEC on human skin cancers showed that the formulations were able to cure skin cancers. I use the word “cure,” because the treated patients were followed-up for over five years and many over ten year periods. There were no recurrences, with other words, when the cancers were treated they did not come back. By medical definition if a cancer is treated and it does not come back after five years it is regarded as a cure.

The time had now come in which we considered that patients suffering from skin cancer should benefit from the BEC formulation which we called Curaderm®. [BEC, the active ingredient in Curaderm, is a patented purified glycoalkaloid mixture—"a standard mixture of SRGs (Solasodine Rhamnosyl Glycosides): solamargine (33%), solasonine (33%) and their corresponding di- and monoglycosides (34%).”]

We obtained approval from the Health Department in Australia to register and market Curaderm. The media and public response was great. However, the dermatologists in Australia responded very differently. Apparently many patients opted to use Curaderm for their skin cancers and cancelled their appointments with their dermatologists. Mind you, these patients had been on the dermatologists' waiting list for three months or more.

The dermatologists then put pressure on the Health Department stating that BEC was poisonous and should be put on prescription. The Health Department succumbed to the dermatologists and Curaderm was put on prescription. In Australia if a product is on prescription you are not allowed to advertise the prescribed drug to the public. Of course the dermatologists did not promote Curaderm for obvious monetary reasons. All the studies we had done showed conclusively that BEC in Curaderm was very safe.

Since the Health Departments were not prepared to accept our data I then turned to a different avenue for further confirmation of the safety of BEC.

During these periods I had learned a lot more about glycoalkaloids and I extracted a wide range of Solanum plant species. I found that the eggplant (S. melongena) contained the exact composition of BEC. Of course eggplant is consumed everyday.

The very important thing with the eggplant is that one teaspoon of eggplant contains the same amount of BEC as one tube of Curaderm.

Hence the story of the eggplant as a cancer cure emerged. We now extract BEC from the eggplant and from the Devil's Apple.

Of course over the years our published skin cancer observations in international journals have been confirmed by many independent dermatologists at Universities and Hospitals world-wide which have also been published.

We brought all of this information to the Australian Health Departments' attention but they promised to look into it but never did so for over five years. We finally gave up on Australia and moved to the Republic of Vanuatu who have accepted us with open arms and, yes, Curaderm BEC5 is not on prescription and is widely available to the general public who can seek advice from their health professional during their treatment with Curaderm!

Moneychanger: Given Curaderm's proven skin-cancer fighting abilities, how do you explain the opposition of Australian health authorities?

Cham: During the development of Curaderm I experienced many "highs" and certainly disappointing "lows".

The "highs" consisted of the excellent results obtained with BEC, Curaderm and the patients' satisfaction after Curaderm therapy.  To hear patients on TV say, “Curaderm saved my life,” and “Curaderm caused my nose to ‘re-grow’ after dermatologists refused to treat my skin cancer because the damage was too severe,” were indescribable "highs". 

Unexpected disappointing "lows" were the attitudes of the "professionals".  I truly expected the dermatologists to cooperate in an unbiased manner and to evaluate Curaderm scientifically.

Before commencement of the clinical trials we sought advice from the dermatologists at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in Australia.  We invited them to conduct the clinical trials.  Initially they agreed to the study that was to commence within six weeks.  There were hundreds of patients volunteering to participate in the trials. Six months later the dermatologists informed us that they were no longer interested to do the clinical trial. 

A general practitioner Dr. H. M. volunteered to conduct a clinical trial, mainly because many patients enquiring about Curaderm approached her. Dr. H. M. decided to test Curaderm to determine whether Curaderm was as good as I had hoped it would be in terms of efficacy and safety.

Dr. H. M. was meticulous in her assessment and treatment of the patients. During the treatment period, Dr. H. M. experienced very negative interference from dermatologists who were condemning BEC even before the trials were completed.  Although frustrating for Dr. H. M. and myself, we persevered with our quest.  None of these obstacles could dampen our resolve, which was spurred on by response and gratitude of the patients who were being treated for their cancers.

The results of these trials are now history. All were positive and have been published in scientific peer reviewed journals.

 In 1989 two letters to the Editor by four dermatologists were published in the Medical Journal of Australia.  They had treated 14 subjects for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) with Curaderm.  Histological examination showed that six lesions were clear of BCC.  The remainders of the lesions were not totally regressed.  These "eminent" dermatologists concluded that Curaderm was not a satisfactory treatment for BCCs.  The results of their "trial" were presented at a grand round meeting at the Royal Brisbane Hospital.  At this meeting, it was stated that Curaderm was applied as a smear twice a day without an occlusive dressing.  At no time did they consult the original investigators or the manufacturer about the method of treatment for BCCs.  Had they requested from the manufacturer information on Curaderm and BEC, then the design and execution of their study would have been more scientific, and all of their patients would have benefited.  We also published a Letter to the Editor in the Medical Journal of Australia pointing out the dermatologists' treatment deficiencies in their study with Curaderm.

The dermatologists felt vulnerable and must have realized the situation they had buried themselves into after we had responded to the Letter to the Editor in the same medical journal.  Next an incredibly peculiar thing happened. Two of the principal dermatologists wrote letters to the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, the head of the Department of Medicine, and to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Queensland complaining that in our Letter to the Editor in response to their two letters, we had used the address of the Department of Medicine. 

Of course we were entitled to use this address because I worked there!  The Australian dermatologists were determined to kill Curaderm.  They quickly pressured governmental authorities into taking Curaderm off the shelves and declaring it a prescription item.  After it became a prescription item, its popularity and use declined significantly. To date the dermatologists in Australia still harbor a large amount of hostility and resentment towards Curaderm and me.  By refusing to prescribe Curaderm and scaring patients away from it, apparently they feel I am being taught a lesson, i.e., that health products and their fate belong in the hands of doctors, not the general public.

I realized that the key to salvaging Curaderm, which had already saved thousands of people from disfigurement, pain, and expense, was to get this product in the hands of the appropriate dermatologists worldwide for critical but fair evaluation.  Therefore I strongly recommended conducting multi-centre phase III trials by dermatologists outside of Australia.

These international independent studies are now history. In January 2008 these studies by 10 hospitals and universities were published in the International Journal of Dermatology which describes the safety and efficacy of BEC when treating skin cancers.

As stated previously, however, the Australian dermatologists had been successful in convincing the Health Departments in Australia to classify Curaderm as a prescription drug. About two weeks after this event, while working in the Department of Medicine, I received a panicked telephone call from my wife, Anita.  She said there were two representatives of the Queensland Health Department who wanted to charge her for contravening health regulations.  I immediately went home and was told by the representatives that Anita had sold them a tube of Curaderm, which was illegal.  I was told that this would have severe consequences and to expect harsh follow up. 

Mind you, this was all about selling the equivalent of one teaspoon of purified eggplant extract. 

After the representatives left, Anita explained to me that the week before she had received a telephone call from a patient who had used Curaderm before it was on prescription and now had difficulties in obtaining Curaderm from a pharmacy.  He said that he was at the tail end of treating a lesion, and asked whether Anita would be kind enough to supply him with a tube of Curaderm?  Anita saw no harm in doing so and of course the following week the Health Department impostors arrived to collect the Curaderm, armed with a hidden tape recorder. 

I thought it was extremely low of the health department officials to stoop to such tactics, impersonating a patient in order to incriminate Anita by arousing her sympathy and charity. She was only a dedicated lovely housewife.  Anita had also mentioned to me that these health department officers attempted to force her to admit that she supplied the Curaderm on behalf of our company.  This of course was not the case.  The Queensland Health Department took legal action against Anita, which ended up in court.  The judge found that Anita had not intentionally done anything wrong and the case was dismissed. Health department representatives were furious and the lawyer representing Anita said, "Bill be careful, they are after you!"  I was so grateful that Anita was so strong.  The judge also commended Anita for her honesty on the stand.  I felt incredibly angry that Anita had to go through this.

All of these incredible, almost unbelievable, events have created uncertainty and confusion by the public regarding the efficacy and safety of Curaderm. Problem is, most people still trust their government health authorities (and in a fair world they should do so), and find it hard to believe that doctors wouldn't immediately flock to something new like Curaderm that works so well.

Thank goodness that scientific publications in recognized journals do exist.  All that is necessary to resolve possible concerns, is to visit the website and take a look at the number of publications regarding Curaderm’s safety and efficacy. 

Conclusions are YES, Curaderm really does work when the instructions for use are followed, and yes, the medical establishment, at least in Australia, for self-interested reasons of its own, has opposed it. 

Moneychanger: Based on your actual clinical results, exactly what sorts of cancer respond to Curaderm?

Cham: The sorts of skin cancers that respond clinically to Curaderm are:

  • Keratosis, a pre-malignant cancer that if not treated may convert to the dangerous squamous cell carcinoma.
  • Keratoacanthoma, a lesion that mimics squamous cell carcinoma.
  • Basal Cell Carcinoma, a true malignant cancer which is the most common form of cancer, with more than one million new cases estimated in the US each year.
  • Squamous Cell Carcinoma, the second most common form of skin cancer, with over 200,000 new cases estimated each year in the US. There are about 2000 deaths from this type of cancer. There is a 3 to 5% chance that this type of skin cancer will metastasise, moving from the skin to penetrate into internal organs.

Moneychanger: Based on your actual clinical results, what percentage of those cancers respond to Curaderm positively? What percentage are actually cured, measured by non-recurrence for five years?

Cham: Based on clinical results virtually 100% of these cancers respond to Curaderm positively. Published work, including independent clinical studies have shown that twice daily Curaderm application under occlusive dressing with 94 patients for eight weeks resulted in 66% success rates for basal cell carcinoma. Follow up of the treated patients for one year showed that the cure rate was 78%.

During Phase II Clinical studies with 129 patients and Phase III Clinical trials with 232 patients it was shown that patients with keratoses, keratoacanthomas, basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas responded virtually 100% to Curaderm treatment. It was shown that in certain cases the treatment regime had to be extended to 12 weeks to obtain the 100% cure rates.

The conclusions of the published clinical studies with Curaderm indicate:

  • All skin cancers treated with Curaderm responded positively.
  • The cure rates depended on the duration of Curaderm treatment.
  • The duration depended on the size and type of skin cancer.
  • Treatment should continue until clinically the cancer was removed, so the lesions should be treated until they have healed.

When patients had completed treatment and had obtained healed outcomes as shown clinically and these patients were followed-up for five years, none of the cancers had returned. Thus medically 100% of these patients were cured by Curaderm.

Moneychanger: After surgical removal, skin cancers may require extensive plastic surgery to reconstruct the area. What damage to the skin or scarring does Curaderm typically leave?

Cham: This is the great value of Curaderm therapy. BEC selectively seeks out and destroys the cancer cells without harming normal cells. When the cancer cells are killed with Curaderm therapy, normal cells replace the dead cancer cells.

Moneychanger: From the pictures in your book, it appears that cancers treated with Curaderm not only heal, but also heal without scarring. In fact, it appears that the very spot the cancer afflicted is completely cured. It can't even be seen; no trace is left Can this be true? Does Curaderm even cure and restore those places where cancers have eaten into noses, etc?

Cham: Cancers treated with Curaderm not only heal, but also heal without scarring. In our published work we have shown that areas that were "eaten" away by cancer were completely restored when treated with Curaderm. In most cases after treatment with Curaderm the patient is not able to identify where the cancer was. However, if a lesion is very large a small amount of scar tissue may be evident after Curaderm therapy.

Here I ought to note that during Curaderm therapy the treated lesion always appears worse than before treatment. This is because Curaderm is killing cancer cells that are not clinically visible. When these treated cancer cells die off, the skin appears to have a sore that is larger and deeper than the original untreated cancer. Treatment should continue until the lesion is completely healed. Cancer in the skin is like an iceberg in water. Only a proportion of the iceberg can be seen on the water's surface; underneath the surface of the water a large proportion of the iceberg can be seen.

Moneychanger: What about backfiring? What are the side effects or drawbacks of Curaderm?

Cham: A few patients have experienced a burning sensation on the lesion being treated with Curaderm. As far as I am aware less than 10 patients out of over 100,000 cases have stopped treatment because of associated local pain.

A large number, but still overall few patients, have experienced some pain during treatment. The pain is caused not by BEC but by salicylic acid which is in the cream formulation Curaderm. The pain was transient and acceptable. Some felt this was good because it gave a sense that Curaderm was "working".

Compared to surgery, treatment with Curaderm is long. However, the cosmetic end result with Curaderm therapy is far superior to surgery.

The recurrence rate of the cancer is extremely low with Curaderm therapy, whereas the recurrence rate of cancer by surgical treatment may be very high

Moneychanger: Does BEC work on internal tumours or cancers other than skin cancer?

Cham: Our group was the first to report that BEC glycoalkaloids have anticancer properties. We have shown that animals suffering from terminal internal cancers could be cured with BEC therapy.

Subsequently we have shown that BEC could selectively kill many types of human internal cancers under laboratory conditions using cell culture studies. A multitude of other independent investigators have since confirmed and expanded on our original published reports. It is now known that BEC as an anticancer agent is far more effective than taxol, cisplatin, gemcitabine, campthothecin, vinblastine, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. These drugs are currently the most widely used drugs for treating cancers and ,at least, in cell culture studies, BEC is superior to them.

Indeed, a combination of BEC with cisplatin has resulted in the effective killing of cisplatin resistant cancer cells, particularly lung cancer cells and breast cancer cells.

We have also shown that BEC has vastly different modes-of-actions as anticancer drugs when compared with the above mentioned traditional anti-mitotic (anti cancer dividing) agents.

We hope to soon conduct clinical studies using BEC in a unique manner to treat human internal cancers.

To date this approach seems very, very promising, but only time will tell whether the treatment outcomes with BEC will lead to a breakthrough in internal cancer therapy.

[Readers desiring more information about BEC trials on other cancers should read the article, “Cancer Intralesion Chemotherapy with Solasodine Rhamnosyl Glycosides),” found at ]]

Moneychanger: Is Curaderm available in the United States?  If it is not sold in the United States, can it be ordered from overseas?

Cham: At this stage Curaderm is not available in the United States. However, inertia is now in motion to obtain registration from the FDA. In the meanwhile, Curaderm is registered in the Republic of Vanuatu for the treatment of non-melanoma skin cancers as an over-the-counter (OTC) item and does not require a prescription, and yes, it can be ordered from overseas via

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: By publishing this material, neither The Moneychanger nor the author/interviewee recommends or endorses any specific treatment or therapy for any physical condition or disease. Neither The Moneychanger nor the author/interviewee guarantees or warrants any results from any treatment discussed, nor assumes any express or implied liability for any use to which the reader puts this information. By this interview, the interviewee does not prescribe any treatment whatsoever for anyone who is not his patient. All the information here is offered for information purposes only, subject to the reader’s own research, prudence, and judgment.

Originally published September 2008