Legal Battles

There is no justice without a fair trial

Neal Deoul

Dr. Plaskett’s statement is a transparent attempt on his part to avoid criticism because of the sensitive nature of any representations relating to cancer.

The Plaskett’s Cancer Article

By Kathleen Deoul

The Plaskett Papers:

The State heavily quotes Dr. Plaskett’s statement in his aloe vera and cancer paper that it would be irresponsible to represent that aloe vera is an effective treatment or cure for cancer because of the lack of clinical research. However, Dr. Plaskett’s statement is a transparent attempt on his part to avoid criticism because of the sensitive nature of any representations relating to cancer. However, when his statement is read in context with all of the other statements contained within the same paper, let alone read in context with all of the other Plaskett papers in evidence, it is clear that Dr. Plaskett believes that aloe vera is an effective treatment for many forms of cancer, as well as a host of other illnesses, and he so states.

The State’s Unfounded Reliance on Testimony and Exhibits In An Effort To Prove Its Case.

The State’s reliance on the testimony of Dr. Heggers to support its Proposed Findings of Fact in ¶¶ 36a and 38a that Respondents’ products do not cure cancer is ludicrous and disingenuous. No where throughout the hearing did Dr. Heggers express such an opinion. The State’s reliance on Dr. Pearce’s testimony as support for its contention in its Proposed Finding of Fact in ¶ 38f that T-Up is neither a powerful immune booster nor an effective treatment for diseases of the immune system is similarly outrageous. Dr. Pearce repeatedly confirmed the accuracy of T-Up’s representations regarding T-Up in its marketing materials and confirmed the effectiveness of T-Up in strengthening and modulating the human immune system.

The State goes on to cite Roberta Brady to support its allegation in Proposed Finding of Fact ¶ 36a. that T-Up’s products have not been shown to cure cancer. Roberta Brady expressly acknowledged in her affidavit that she had never used T-Up products. Rather, she returned these products unopened and received a full refund. (S43 at ¶ 7).

Similarly, the State inaccurately cited Linda Macek in support of its contention in its Proposed Finding of Fact ¶ 38c. that T-Up does not cause a doubling of T-4 lymphocytes in persons with HIV or AIDS every three weeks. No where during the course of Ms. Macek’s testimony was she asked or did she offer the results she had obtained while ingesting T-Up. Therefore, the State’s reliance on her testimony to support the alleged ineffectiveness of T-Up is completely unfounded. Moreover, no where in T-Up’s marketing materials did it represent that T-Up would double the T-4 lymphocytes of persons with AIDS or HIV. Rather, the Brochure merely reported that such a result had been observed by Hoffman in his Baltimore AIDS research. (S9 at 3).

Finally, Footnote 9 on page 16 of the State’s Memorandum of Law bears special mention. The State there affirmatively represents to the Court that “Carrington Laboratories refuses to rely on the same body of research that is cited by Respondents and, consequently, it is not currently selling any aloe products designed for human consumption.” (citing Heggers, Tr. at 5112-13 and Hennessee, Tr. at 2140). Messrs. Heggers and Hennessee merely testified that they did not know what products Carrington Laboratories was selling for human consumption - nothing more.

The State knows full well that it is attempting to convince the Court of a far reaching proposition that is false. Carrington Laboratory’s 10K filed with the SEC, D36, was withdrawn by Respondents because it was considered redundant, not anticipating that the State would dare to make such a patently false representation to the Court. Nevertheless, the Court may take judicial notice of Carrington Laboratory’s 10K SEC filing. Pages 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 44 are attached hereto. Carrington Laboratories does not sell acemannan products for human consumption. Rather, its wholly owned subsidiary Caraloe, Inc. does so. (SEC filing at 2). Caraloe, Inc. markets its “patented complex carbohydrates technology” (acemannan) through the health food store market (SEC filing at 4). Carrington also markets injectable mannans as “acemannan immunostimulants.” (SEC filing at 5). In 1996, the net sales for Caraloe, Inc.’s home health care market totaled $3,694,000. (SEC filing at 5).

There would be no end to this tome, if Respondents pointed out each of the State’s references that does not support the proposition for which it is cited.


For all of the foregoing reasons, the Statement of Charges should be dismissed in its entirety. In the alternative, the Statement of Charges should be dismissed as to Neal Deoul.

Respectfully submitted,
David Freishtat
Stacie F. Dubnow

Cancer Cover-Up:

An indictment of Big Medicine and Their Suppression of the Cesium Cancer Therapy.

Cancer Cover Up

Soft or Hard Cover

1500 One Calvert Plaza
201 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 727-7740
Attorneys for Neal Deoul

I HEREBY certify that on this ____ day of May, 1999, a copy of the foregoing Closing Argument was hand-delivered to:

Philip Ziperman
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
200 St. Paul Place, 16th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Michael Marr, Esquire
7305 Bel Air Road
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Stacie F. Dubnow

  1. Ms. Daley left presents for Dr. MacNay and purchased aloe vera from Cosmetic Specialty Labs after she returned home. (Daley, Tr. at 179).
  2. Neither Dr. Gallant nor Dr. Humphrey were qualified to offer opinions regarding the safety or effectiveness of cesium chloride. Dr. Gallant was qualified as an infectious disease expert and Dr. Humphrey as an oncologist and immunologist. Although the State attempted to qualify Dr. Winters as an expert in cesium chloride, he failed to qualify as such and was not permitted to render any opinions on the subject. No attempt was made to qualify Dr. DuBois as an expert on cesium.
  3. Scott Van Horn testified at the hearing that in response to the State’s document subpoena, T-Up produced whatever scientific studies, articles and other materials happened to be within the company’s possession at that time. He further testified that to his knowledge, there were a number of other journal articles and materials which supported T-Up’s claims about its products. T-Up never has represented that the scientific journal articles contained within State Exhibit 56 in and of themselves substantiate T-Up’s claims about its products in its marketing materials. Moreover, State Exhibit 56 is the end result of a production in response to a State request for documents which supported T-Up’s claim that its products “appear ... to be able to manipulate the immune system and help the body address problems such as cancer... .” (emphasis added). This is a far cry from the State’s claim in its Statement of Charges that Respondents represented that their products had been “medically proven” effective treatments and cures.
  4. Performance of the perfunctory task of ordering copies of the Brochure and Tape from a relative does not make Deoul an active participant in T-Up’s marketing practices.
  5. For the same reasons, the OAH refused to let Dr. Winters address the cesium chloride journal articles.

portrait-Kathleen-Deoul-150x150About Kathleen Deoul

Internationally acclaimed wellness advocate Kathleen B. Deoul founded Cassandra Books. In taking this step, Kathleen hopes to bring her message of health and hope to people all over the world. Full profile

Take Action!

You can help in the fight for your life!

Legislators need to hear from their constituents. View our resources to help you get in contact with your legislators.